Politics, as they say, makes for strange bedfellows.
New Senate Whip John Barrasso with President Elect Donald Trump and President John F. Kennedy with his nephew Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Politics is, we also know, the art of compromise, but to what extent is a politician to blame for compromising with the truth?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been chosen by Donald Trump to be the new head of Health and Human Services.
He is, frankly, a nutter on health topics, who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near such a post.
John Barrasso is, by training, an orthopedic surgeon.
I've long suspected, well I'm pretty much certain, that Dr. Barrasso doesn't actually believe even half of what he's saying..He's doing it to 1) keep his Senatorial seat; and 2) advance himself in the Senate, even though at his age he could easily retire and be done with it.
Without getting too deep into it, I also believe that once you start compromising on fundamental things, you keep doing it, including with the truth. You don't start off deep into it, but you end up there.
Dr. Barrasso was known, at one time, as "Wyoming's Doctor" and had spots on local television with health minutes, and hosted the Labor Day Marathon. He continued to do this after he became Senator, a spot he was appointed to by the legislature to fill a vacancy before he was elected.
I've met him, as a physician, but can't claim to know him. I've been with him on commercial aircraft numerous times. I've always left him alone, as I figure that while traveling, people don't like to be bothered. I don't. Not everyone was like that, however, and I'd see people who recognized him treat him sort of like fans treated Elvis Presley.
Dr. Barrasso is originally from Pennsylvania. With a solid Italian American parentage, and an early Catholic education, I'd guess, but don't know, that he was a Catholic up until some point. He list himself as a Presbyterian now, and has been divorced, and later remarried. He's in his early 70s. Early on, his positions were clearly moderate Republican, but starting at least as early as 2016 they began to rapidly head towards Trumpism. He had a right wing challenger in the GOP primary last go around, and while I think the chances of him every losing were small, he went hardcore to the right.
Now he's the whip. Trump is going to expect him to whip up support for Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, holds some of the nuttiest ideas on healthcare, and particularly vaccines, imaginable. He shouldn't be anywhere near the Department of Health and Human Services.
Will Barrasso choke those down and support them.
Again, people don't get to supporting anything overnight. Some do rapidly, some over decades.
RFK, Jr. has no business in this office.
Kennedys
Before moving on, hasn't the country had enough of the Kennedys?
I certainly have.
The over tattooed and expropriation.
Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, is taking a lot of flak. Some of it is for things he's said or believes
Some of it for his tattoos, which are interpreted to mean things which they might not.
One of those tattoos is of a Jerusalem Cross.
The Jerusalem cross consists of a large cross potent surrounded by four smaller Greek crosses representing the spread of the gospel to the four corners of the earth. It was used as the emblem and coat of arms of the Kingdom of Jerusalem after 1099.
Hegeth is a member of a church which is part of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches. Therefore, he's appropriating a Catholic symbol, while he's not a Catholic. Indeed, he's not even close, as he's on his third spouse, something no adherent Catholic would have done.
He also has a tattoo on a bicep that states Deus vult, "God wills", a phrase that dates back to the First Crusade, but which has been appropriated by many groups over the years. And it doesn't stop there.
“Israel, Christianity and my faith are things I care deeply about,” he's stated.
Perhaps he should learn more about the faith espoused by the symbols that he's had inked on himself. Indeed, quite frankly, the men who cried Deus vult in the 11th Century and those who fought to defend the Kingdom of Jerusalem would have regarded him as a heretic.
Anyhow, one thing that I've worried about since the rise of Christian Nationalist is that Catholics are the ones who are going to take a beating in the end, even though its really a Protestant movement. I can already see it starting to happen. Former Senator Adam Kinzinger, who comments heavily on Blue Sky and Twitter, had a post noting that "the Crusades weren't Christian". Oh yes they were, the thing they weren't is the edited version that English Protestants came up with to attempt to tar and feather the Church. Others have been running around claiming that the Jerusalem Cross, which Catholics use a lot, is a Nazi symbol, which it isn't, or a camouflaged swastika, which it isn't.
The United States remains a Protestant nation, including in the way it reacts to symbols and in its misunderstanding of history.
All this serves, I'd note, to bury a deeper item that should be of actual concern, which is the American Evangelical view towards Israel. This is not universal, by any means, but there's a branch of American Evangelicalism which sees itself as having a direct role in bringing about the Second Coming through its interaction with Israel. According to somebody who knew him and commented on it recently (therefore at least making it somewhat suspect) former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who has been nominated by Trump to be Ambassador to Israel, and who is a Baptist minister, has those views.
Really, people with the apparent views of Huckabee and Kinzinger really have no business in the offices they've been nominated to serve in.
Hairless wonders.
This is sort of an odd aside, but the huge increase in male tattoos, including chest tattoos, has caused me to wonder, has there been a reduction in male chest hair in recent years?
Chest hair is a secondary male characteristic which is caused by a variety of genetic factors. One of those is a high testosterone level, and for that reason, hairy chests have gone, at any one time, from being regarded as "brutish" to sexy. Because of the conditions of the Second World War, Americans were acclimated for a time to seeing men shirtless, which was unusual, and for a good several decades after the war, hairy chested men, or just flat out hairy men in general, were in vogue. Indeed I can recall seeing some 1960s vintage war movie with Fabian in it which was ridiculously hairy.
This is clearly really out now, but it still raises the question, what's going on. Personally, I couldn't have a giant chest tattoo like Hegseth for the same reason that Tom Selleck couldn't. I doubt that I really could have a tattoo anywhere safe for the the generally non visible part of my arms either.
It's interesting to note that there has been a substantial reduction in detected testosterone levels in the US since the 1980s.**
Maybe RFK, Jr. can look into that.
Creeps
It's a real irony that the man so many Christian Evangelicals saw as the Christian candidate has such a horrible personal tract record at least in the sexual ethics category, but perhaps that fact should cause us to be less than surprised that he nominated Matt Gaetz to be Attorney General of the United States.
There seem to be no doubt that Gaetz dabbled down in this category to a 17 year old. Yes, he wasn't prosecuted, but he may have had a credible defense based on scienter. According to at least one report, once he learned she was 17, he abstained from her favors until she was 18.
The thing here, however, is that this conduct is completely immoral. Not only is it sex outside of marriage, which Christianity, but Gaetz is a creep who is fishing in the bottom of the well. Frankly, this deserves further investigation as most 17 year olds or 18 year olds would have had no interest in Gaetz, so something should be done to figure out why they did and what's behind that.
This guy has no significant legal experience and shouldn't be anywhere near the AG's office.
Scenes from the American dumpster fire.
Strange bedfellows indeed.
At this point, however, if Matt Gaetz invited Mike Johnson over to the Playboy Grotto, if it still existed, I'd expect him to go.
Something about this photo just shows how trashy American culture has become.
Trashy.
I think there is sort of a faction in the Republican Party that has a strange kind of... sort of homoerotic fascination for Putin.
Boris Johnson recently stated this.
The fascination for Putin (who has a hairless chest, I'd note) is pretty weird.
Trad Rant
The recent election seems to have bubbled some stuff up from the bottom of the cultural dutch oven, and not just stuff like the weird things noted in the two above entries. Some of this is interesting to ponder, including pondering whether its a serious trend or something else.
One of them is the emergence of secular (and religious) trad women, holding a romantic, it seems, view of the not so distant path.
Here's an example. Interesting trad rant starting at 21:00.
I don't want to go to far in criticizing this, really, as it has a real appeal, as does a lot of sort of agrarian conservatism and Chesteronian distributism I see creeping into the culture, sort of sideways. These people are sincere, and there's a real appeal to it. Shoot, I'd live an agrarian life if people around me would allow it, or so I tell myself.
Others tell themselves that too, and also mock themselves, as for example, here:
Terry Mattingly's Get Religion blog, which have linked in here on the side, states something that we've already stated, but in a more in-depth article.
Or maybe it's something we've posed as a question.
Christianity is not a European religion. Indeed, Europeans, in the form of Romans and Greeks, at first opposed it.
Christianity, and certainly the original form of Christianity, Apostolic Christianity, of which all the Orthodox and Catholics are part, came out of the Middle East and in fact it never left it. The first Catholics, which is to say the first Christians, were at the very first all in the Roman province of Palestine. Pretty soon they were in Syria, where they were first called Christians, and Egypt. In the Apostolic Age Christianity, which again is to say Catholicism, made it all the way to India, and of course it also made it to Rome. Rome was the early site of the head of the Church, because it was the center of the most powerful secular entity in the world, the Roman Empire, but other localities were major diocesan seats as well. The last Apostolic Christian church in North Africa prevailed until the 1400s, the same century that the Moors were expelled from Spain, and the same century that the Church was established in Sub Sarah Africa. Catholicism was so strong in Angola that pre Revolution slave rebellion in the Southern English Colonies of North America saw a Catholic Angolan band rise up and bolt for Catholic Florida.
So why, some of us have asked, is there so much attention on homosexuality in today's Church?
Seem unconnected? It isn't.
Homosexuality is relatively rare in the world, but it is most common in European cultures. There are a number of reasons for this. For one thing, the Western world is rich, and it's used its wealth in pecular ways impacting living arrangements. Basic aspects of adult life common throughout human history and in every culture have been badly warped in post World War Two, or maybe post World War One, or maybe as part of the Enlightenment, European cultured world. While consumption of food, working, and the basic reproductive nature of humans is the same at an elemental level for people everywhere, and at all times, in the rich society of post 1945 Western Culture, there's an entertainment element to all of it. People do these things to be "fulfilled", which in the end often tends to mean that their reproductive organs pretty much play the same role as a Nintendo joystick. People have completely lost the connective and reproductive aspect to sex itself, which naturally leads to all sorts of bored playing with it. We have, in this context, all become characters on MXC.
Additionally, as the West developed it got into warehousing of men, and sometimes women, for various reasons. In the movie version of Pasternak's classic, Dr. Zhivago, the Orthodox Priest, in taking Lara's confession, warned her that sex was strong and that "only marriage can contain it". As we've built societies that postpone marriage by operation of social pressure and economics, we can't be surprised that premarital sex became common. Likewise, as we warehoused young men in various fashion. . .all male schools, all male institutions, etc., a certain percentage seek relief where they can find it. Like most disordered behavior, the initial inclination probably isn't really very strong, but once people find relief in it, that takes over. People don't take up drinking a quart of Jim Beam all in one setting.
So at this point the rich West has a pretty messed up relationship with sex in general, and for that matter, with nature and life in general.
And it's in a rocketing decline.
So why so much attention to the Fr. James Martin's of the world? Why does the Papacy address this small demographic rather than, so far, addressing the effective schism of the German church, which has gone even further?
Mattingly notes:
"The Church of Africa is the voice of the poor, the simple and the small," wrote Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea, the former head of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. "It has the task of announcing the Word of God in front of Western Christians who, because they are rich, equipped with multiple skills in philosophy, theological, biblical and canonical sciences, believe they are evolved, modern and wise in the wisdom of the world."
Mattingly also notes:
Catholic debates over LGBTQ+ issues are crucial, he [ Rev. Chris Ritter] said, "because if you want to spot low-fertility, low-faith cultures in Europe and elsewhere, you look at how and when they legalized and legitimized same-sex marriage. That will give you a good idea of what is happening. … Just look for large numbers of secular old people."
And that gets back to what I noted the other day. The West, in every fashion, is in decline. By mid-century that will be more obvious than it is now, and that's not long. In our feebleness, we've become self obsessed and lost a grasp of the existential.
This won't last forever. Our self extermination by confusing entertainment with living is assuring it will not. And, by extension, the unique tragedy of homosexuality, and the related plagues that endorsing rather than sympathizing with that tragedy has brought on, won't last long as major issues much longer either. Society really doesn't need to be wringing its hands so much over this.
For that matter, we can suppose it won't be long until the occupant of St. Peter's Chair was born in Africa once again. . .and that will not be a bad thing.
At any one time, I have a bunch of posts in the works, some of which are on concurrent themes. This is one, basically, as it touches on a larger topic.
Something is going on.
A couple of years ago I started to see some women, by which I mean, let's say, women 40 years or older, resuming the wearing of chapel veils (mantillas). They were clearly on the traditional end of things.
Recently, however, I'm seeing young women do this.
I shouldn't, probably, have used the term "girls" in the caption, but for whatever reason, culturally, we tend to use the term "girls" for young women well into their 20s. Maybe somewhat beyond. It seems to encompass women in their late teens on up to that point.
And that's what I'm referring to here.
I noticed it first the year before last, and at an early morning Mass on a Holy Day (All Saints Day, I think). Two young women, probably very late teens or very early twenties, sat right in front of me. One was dressed conservatively but contemporarily. She was wearing a leather skirt. . . and a chapel veil (mantilla).
Now, there was a young woman from a very trad family in the parish who dressed almost as if in a Medieval costume for young women every Mass. That's not what I'm talking about here. This young woman was wearing a nice wool sweater, and a leather skirt, and a chapel veil.
It caught me off guard.
I'm seeing stuff like that all the time now. Young women, often early twenties, dressed conservatively, but not in costume, who have adopted the mantilla. Indeed, just yesterday, at the early morning Mass Sunday, the Church did the Ritual for the Elect for those who were coming into the Church. They all have a sponsor. One young woman coming in had, as her sponsor, another young women.
Frankly, the sponsor was stunning. And she was wearing a chapel veil. Last Sunday across town there was another young woman dressed in that fashion who was eye catching as well, and the week before that there was another so dressed who was a head turner.**
I note that, as it was easy, when the only women who did this were let's say older, and otherwise dressed in a fashion that was old-fashioned, perhaps, or dour. These young women aren't. They're hard not to notice.
Indeed, yesterday, the young woman mentioned went from the front of the Church to the back with a very proud carriage, which is not to suggest sinful pride. Rather, she carried herself the way that people who are very self-assured, for very good reasons, do.
Something is going on.
And It's not just here. A friend of mine in Oklahoma noticed the same thing at his local parish. And it's crossed into other regions, or perhaps hit there first. For example, notable Korean figure skater Yuna Kim is Catholic, and people like to snap photos of her at Mass wearing a chapel veil.
And it's interesting that this is going on at the same time that some members of the leadership of the Church, which tends to be up in years, seems to be trying to insert the liberal.
I've often noticed that people who come up in particularly devise or stressed eras, and maybe more of us do than not, tend to form our view of the world in those times. A lot of people in their upper 60s, 70s, and 80s assume that "what the young want" is what they wanted when they were young.
The evidence for this is to the contrary.
There's a lot more to this. It's interesting.
Footnotes
*It's important to note that categorizing what an entire generation, or generations, want is hazardous. For example, at least superficially, here I'm noting a return to Catholic tradition among the same generation that is exhibiting such things as a belief that you can change your gender.
Well, a couple of things.
At any one time you can have an overall trend in a generation while individual members of it hold an opposite view. There were, for example, more volunteers who served in Vietnam than there were conscripts, contrary to popular imagination, meaning that quite a few young men sought to serve in the war at the same time history informs us their generation had turned against it. By the same token, you can find a few examples of Americans who were adamantly opposed to the country entering World War One or Two, and continued to hold that view after the country declared war. Beatniks were a feature of the supposedly superconservative 1950s.
Secondly, people are more complex than categorists and political parties may suppose, and as a result they can often hold contrary views, or views that seem to be contrary, or views contrary to the ones they themselves exhibit. Indeed, I've heard some of the stoutest denouncements of tobacco from smokers. They smoked, but wished they didn't.
You get the point.
**For some reason, you're not supposed to say this. Well, noticing that a woman is attractive is not the same thing as engaging in Hefnereque behavior, and the fact that creeps have co-opted this entire aspect of communication is just evidence of how weird and pornified our culture is.