Not sure what to make of this, but the commenter makes an interesting point:

Psychologically, and perhaps biologically, women [are] more naturally conservative/paternalistic, and would exchange the uncertainty of liberty for the peace of authority, of course, as long as they were the authority.

One might even go so far as to say that the socialistic welfare state exists mainly because of women’s suffrage. They exhibit this tendency in how they run households and how they try to control their spouses.

Hmmm.

Fr. John Harvey’s conversion story.

Domestic terrorism

 

Oh gosh, Wisconsin had it worse.

Notre Dame coach has to do a better of “managing [his] emotions.”

Oh yes, and trying to keep his players out of the lives (and death) of St. Mary’s girls.

May I count (some of) the ways in which this story is a wreck.

1. The lede: “Politicians and business groups often blame excessive regulation and fear of higher taxes for tepid hiring in the economy.” Which politicians? REPUBLICANS. So: Republicans . . . often blame etc. Kevin G. Hall is being either coy about this or feckless or devious.

2. Nine very small companies are named, some of whom cast blame where Kevin Hall says his sample of owners says it should go.

3. Hall lays out the off-cuff, inexpert opinion of some of them in a context that calls for their talking about their own situation. Sloppy.

In sum, he has a thesis based on an anonymously created survey by newsies who know mostly what they read in newspapers (a la Will Rogers) on which their story is based that doesn’t always back up their “surprising” findings.

MOREOVER, Chi Trib gives it an entire page (p. 3) of its big-for-them five-page business section. Read it yourself.

Geraghty gets real:

There’s no point in getting the GOP to nominate my ideal candidate — say, the mind of Friedrich Hayek in the body of Salma Hayek

Dems to Big O: Don’t give us no stinkin’ compromise talk.

If you think Rush Limbaugh paints conservatism with too wide a brush, consider this from a major conservative think tank. You may be surprised.

Later:  Too narrow a brush?   Too blunt an instrument?  What say, verbally precise reader?

Next day: Yesterday Rush L. responded, essentially declaring the criticism irrelevant to the current situation.

Pope Leo’s encyclical and today’s unions:

[T]his weekend’s rhetoric [Hoffa and his "war on Republicans" etc.] is a vivid reminder that most labor organizations have moved far beyond their proper and defensible role.

Though “the condition of the working classes” is much different now than it was when Pope Leo XIII wrote Rerum Novarum in 1891, the document provides a strong justification of labor unions and their position in society.

This is done in the context of a response to the advances of socialism on one hand and atheistic individualism on the other. It would be inflammatory, perhaps even violent, to identify the labor leaders of today with Leo’s socialists, and it would be a stretch to say that Hoffa & co. advocate state-owned means of production, but their contribution to political discourse is remarkably similar to Leo’s characterization of socialist tactics [italics added]:

Etc.

A movie, yessss! About Media Matters for America, a watchdog group with an eye for barbarians at the gate. A trailer. No wonder we need defenders of the way things used to be like Jimmy Hoffa Jr.