A Quick Remembrance of Roy Halladay

Some of you may know, and some may not, that I am a huuuuuuuuuge baseball fan. I’m not a live and breathe it guy, and most years I don’t see a game in person, but I follow inning by inning via MLB Gameday if I can’t see the game and watch it if I can, and I hang out on the baseball blogs. My team? Yankees. I made sure to get off of work to watch game 7 of the ALCS this year (best Yankees blog, by the way, is River Ave Blues, by a country mile).

I’ve only been watching since 2007 – for ten years. And for three of those years – 2007 to 2009 – I got to see Roy “Doc” Halladay pitching for the Toronto Blue Jays, in the same division as the Yankees. And man did I hate playing him.

Don’t misunderstand me. Halladay never gave off a bad vibe; he seemed like a nice guy. Never in the news for saying stupid crap for anything like that. He was a great story, too, coming back from a historically awful rookie season to have a Hall of Fame career.

But to play against him? Awful.

As I haven’t been watching that long, relatively, I can say with complete confidence that Roy Halladay is, bar none, the best, most dominating pitcher I’ve ever seen. Oh, there were pitchers with better stuff, more wicked sliders, faster fastballs, and lots of sexy strikeouts. Justin Verlander comes to mind immediately.

But Halladay? He’d make it look EASY. When the Yankees faced him it was like they might as well not have bothered showing up. It felt like he threw a two hit shutout Every. Single. Time. And with no hard contact! Dribbling grounders, infield pop-ups, broken bats…

And the at-bats wouldn’t even be competitive! Next thing you know you’re in the ninth inning, Halladay is at 88 pitches and you’re wondering why the hell you’re still watching. Sure it might only be a two run lead, but come on…it’s Roy Halladay.

Is it any surprise that Halladay happened to pitch a perfect game? Nah. He’d be the guy to do it. He’d also be the guy to pitch a no-hitter in the playoffs, the only guy to do it since Don Larsen pitched a perfect game in the World Series.

Truthfully, I have no specific, defining image of Roy Halladay burned into my brain, because all of his starts blended together for me. It was just one long string of constant domination; the individual game hardly mattered.

Like I said – easily the most dominant pitcher I’ve ever seen, and if you asked me I wouldn’t even have to think.

What a loss.

RIP Roy Halladay.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments


John C. Wright:

Voting is not burning a pinch of incense to Caesar. We Christians are required by the word of the Word of God himself to render up to Caesar what is due Caesar. In a republic, voting, like jury duty, is an obligation no less binding than paying taxes.

Don’tsayanything Don’tsayanything Don’tsayanything…


Posted in Uncategorized | 18 Comments

Something That Bugs Me

So I was discussing things with a friend and remembered reading an article about how romantic attraction was a choice. I couldn’t remember where I first read it, but after a quick Google I found it here. And against my better judgment – and it was my better judgment, believe me – I got sucked into some of the articles.

I sound harsh. The blog actually isn’t that bad at all. There’s some good stuff there – like the article I previously linked. But articles like this piss me off – basically an article trying to be an advertisement for online dating.

Instead, my options could very likely be “marry a man who is right for me and lives far away vs. not get married at all.”

And that was when I rethought my willingness to move.

I will grant that there are some people who cannot relocate for a relationship. Yes, I’m looking at you, Mr. or Ms. Children At Home Part Time. I have yet to encounter a situation that I believe would justify moving away from a minor child. Others may have similar responsibilities that they legitimately can’t leave. But beyond that, I’m not sure there are a whole lot of ironclad reasons to insist on staying put.

My family, friends, and job are all here.

You say,  “But my family is here.  My friends are here!  My job is here!  I love my gym! I don’t want to give all of that up.” Of course you don’t. Neither do I. I live in God’s country. I have built a very successful business here. I live near my brothers and sisters, whom I love. But would I give all of that up for a happy marriage to the right man? I’m pretty sure I would.

See, I find this insulting. It implies that the reason I won’t search the country and move 300 miles away to marry the woman of my dreams is because I don’t value marriage enough. But there is a much, much simpler reason:

I can’t.

Let’s go through the hypotheticals here.

Let’s say, using this site, I find a wonderful woman who lives, oh, forty hours away by car. We get to know each other, through skype and online. We get along well!

Now the time has come to meet her in person. I could either:

A) Take a plane. Hundreds of dollars at least


B) Take a car. That’s money lost I could be making at work, money lost in gas, and a hell of a lot of time lost, including money spent at a motel. We’re talking hundreds of dollars again probably.

And what am I going to do? Say hi, grab a cup of coffee, and leave?

Spend a weekend together?

All right. What if we don’t click?

This isn’t entirely hypothetical. I actually know flesh and blood people who have talked to folks online, chatted, skyped, had seemingly great chemistry…then went on a single date and decided it was not to be. And it wasn’t a bad deal for them, because they were within driving distance of each other, and I mean a day trip where you’re back home in time to watch the ballgame.

Articles like this are telling me to take this sort of chance on a person I have never met in person because maybe, one day, I’ll be so in love with them I’d be willing to uproot my entire life and move next to them.

And what if the one date goes well? That date wasn’t cheap, right? How rich exactly does Catholicmatch think people are? When will the next date be, another three months? Six? How is this courtship process supposed to work?

I guess they’re trying to find people rich enough to fill their coffers.

Blech. Just annoying.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

A Simple Formula

If the women blowing Weinstein are doing nothing wrong, neither is Weinstein.

If Weinstein is doing something wrong by getting girls to blow him for roles, then the women blowing him are also doing something wrong.

It’s that simple.

Rape, of course, is something different entirely.

Keep in mind that I have nothing but disgust and contempt for Harvey Weinstein and the morally repugnant sludgepool that is Hollywood.

Posted in Uncategorized | 13 Comments

Let’s Go One Step Further

From John C. Wright:

And those of you who have resisted the sexual revolution and its lies, or who even now are beginning to question the layered system of uproarious falsehoods on which it is built, if you have wondered why feminists and modern young women in general are so crazy, let pity replace condemnation.

The evil fantasy world in which they live is actually the world in which they live.

This is how their fellow Leftists treat them. The division of the world into powerful exploiters and weak victims, a world without heroines able to slap a cad, a world without men willing to punch or knife a cad, a world with all cads and no men, that is the world of the Left.

She merely cannot say who the oppressor is. She cannot name the disease. So she blames the doctor. She cannot name the arsonist. She blames the fireman.

Ignore anything coming out her mouth as nonsense. Let her be silent. But treat the wound she bears as real and as serious. If you are in the Last Crusade, your mission is to save the damsel, not to condemn her, even when the damsel is a termagant.

Did you think this business would be easy?

Why, this is not far enough. Why stop at condemning the damsel? Why are we condemning the oppressor? Did they not grow up after the sexual revolution? Did they not come from broken homes and a godless society? Were they not placed in situations where their worldview was warped and their morality twisted?

Why condemn the murderous drug-addicted junkie who killed a man for a hit? Did you know his wife divorced him (took all his money too after cheating on him, that bitch!)? His daddy beat him? Of COURSE he got involved in drugs. Can you blame him? Are we really going to condemn a drug addicted murderer?

Why condemn the rapist? Look, I’ll show you a brain scan. It’s weird, right? He had a sex addiction. He grew up in a home with religious fanatics as parents who taught him to hate his sexuality. No wonder he needed some form of release. Considering his background, what were his options?

No, this is too far, I say. Do not condemn the damsel*, drug junkie murderer, rapist, or Harvey Weinstein (but I repeat myself).

No, I say we condemn none of this. Compassion for all!

Because after all, dialing back on condemnation of sinners for their sins has worked so far, right?

Forgive my sarcasm. This attitude is not healthy.

*A thought experiment: Replace the word “damsel” with the more accurate “whore”, then re-read that section and see how it sounds.

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments

Or you can just read Dr. Feser

Better timing I cannot imagine.

Brilliant, as always. Some choice quotes:

“Surely you’re not against liberty, equality, and fraternity?!” you ask.  Well, no, not necessarily – depending on what you mean by those terms.  The trouble is that though some of the ideas that commonly go under those labels are good, others are very bad.  But the good and bad frequently get mixed together, so that it is assumed that if you accept liberty, equality, or fraternity in one sense, you have to accept them in the other senses as well.

If you must have three words or phrases that sum up the natural law position, they would, I suppose, be: subsidiaritysolidarity; and family and patriotism.  Liberty, equality, and fraternity as usually understood are distortions of these three.

Read the whole thing and assume I agree with all of it.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Yes, There is a Good Equality

With all my (I think deserved) criticism of equality and even human rights as a concept, it isn’t true that their is no way the words can be used correctly. The Catechism of the Catholic Church uses them here:


1929 Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him:

What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.35

1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.36 If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

1931 Respect for the human person proceeds by way of respect for the principle that “everyone should look upon his neighbor (without any exception) as ‘another self,’ above all bearing in mind his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity.”37 No legislation could by itself do away with the fears, prejudices, and attitudes of pride and selfishness which obstruct the establishment of truly fraternal societies. Such behavior will cease only through the charity that finds in every man a “neighbor,” a brother.


1934 Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity.

1935 The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it:

Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.40

1936 On coming into the world, man is not equipped with everything he needs for developing his bodily and spiritual life. He needs others. Differences appear tied to age, physical abilities, intellectual or moral aptitudes, the benefits derived from social commerce, and the distribution of wealth.41 The “talents” are not distributed equally.42

1937 These differences belong to God’s plan, who wills that each receive what he needs from others, and that those endowed with particular “talents” share the benefits with those who need them. These differences encourage and often oblige persons to practice generosity, kindness, and sharing of goods; they foster the mutual enrichment of cultures:

I distribute the virtues quite diversely; I do not give all of them to each person, but some to one, some to others. . . . I shall give principally charity to one; justice to another; humility to this one, a living faith to that one. . . . And so I have given many gifts and graces, both spiritual and temporal, with such diversity that I have not given everything to one single person, so that you may be constrained to practice charity towards one another. . . . I have willed that one should need another and that all should be my ministers in distributing the graces and gifts they have received from me.43

1938 There exist also sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women. These are in open contradiction of the Gospel:

Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions. Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human race is a source of scandal and militates against social justice, equity, human dignity, as well as social and international peace.44

I think that the Catechism is making a mistake in using these terms because of the metaphysical and historical baggage surrounding them, and how easily they are skewed by liberals; see my conversation with John C. Wright for a lesson of how easy it is for highly intelligent and faithful Christian to equivocate between equality of human dignity (the “Good” kind) and equality of authority, which is utterly impossible in any case.

“Rights” is another highly confusing term. The Catechism seems to use the term “right”…actually, I’m not sure what it means by right. There is no such thing as an absolute right: There are situations in which the right to life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, and whatever else you want to add can all be reasonably denied a person depending on the circumstance, and what’s more almost nobody disagrees with this. Maybe the Catechism is saying that rights are just another way of talking about the moral, natural law that all men know in their hearts? If so, again, using the term “rights” here is a mistake the gunks up the works with faulty enlightenment thinking.

I’m just saying this to make the point that every single time somebody talks about “equality” or “equal right” they aren’t necessarily using the words in a way that’s expressly incompatible with reality or morality. But I think we should question the wisdom of using these terms.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments