DO YOU REALLY NEED ME TO PRAY FOR YOU?

1/21/13




I have long had ambiguous feelings about praying for people or asking for prayers from people. I spend a lot of time praying for friends, public figures, and even for random strangers. I’m not at all shy about asking people to pray for me. (In fact, while I’m on the subject, please say a prayer for me and my family and I will say at least one for you and yours. Thanks.) Catholics regularly ask the saints to pray for us. One of our most beautiful prayers is the Memorare, a prayer of petition to the Blessed Mother that concludes



“O Mother of the Word Incarnate,

despise not my petitions,

but in your mercy, hear and answer me.

Amen.”



So why am I do have such ambiguous feelings about mutual prayer?

Leave aside for a moment, as grist for another mill, whether we should be asking God for anything beyond knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out. God is, after all, not some kind of cosmic short order cook. See my 12/30/12 LBJ AND THE INSCRUTABILITY OF THE LORD. I still have problems with praying for people and having people pray for me, even though I still believe that prayer for others is one of our most important jobs in life and an activity in which I regularly and enthusiastically engage and I ask people, all of you included, for your prayers. Why?



Praying for others seems to assume that God has to be talked into doing good things for us. We sometimes have an image of God as some kind of almighty curmudgeon, or worse, who really is looking for an opportunity to flick us into hell, or otherwise wreak havoc on our lives, at the slightest provocation. He must be appeased…or else. And what better way to appease Him but to request that someone, especially someone on His good side, ask Him to do something nice for us, or at least to go easy on us? As Christians, and especially as Catholics, we consider Mary to be as close to Him as one could possibly get. He can’t refuse His mother, right? So let’s ask Mary to bring our requests, permissions, etc., to Him, and maybe He’ll accede to our requests.



This whole notion seems absurd. God is, after all, love. He wants to do what is best for us and is always striving to do what is best for us. The problem is our cooperation and the cooperation of other people with His plans for good for us, but I digress. He doesn’t have to be talked into inundating us with manifestations of His love; that’s what He does as a loving Father. And He’s not going to do what is bad for us or give us things we shouldn’t have, no matter how much we ask His mother to nag Him about it. And, by the way, Mary is not going to nag her Son to do what we want simply because we want it.



So it seems nonsensical to ask people to ask God to do things He already intends to do and pointless and harmful to ask people to ask God to do things He doesn’t want to do because they are not in His loving plan for us. As St. Peter tells us (1 Peter 5, 6)



“Cast all your worries upon him because he cares for you.”



and the author of Hebrews tells us (Hebrews 13, 5)



“…for he has said ‘I will never forsake you or abandon you.’”



And he means NEVER, but I digress.





And yet…



Those who have heralded God’s message often, almost characteristically, ask us to pray for each other. St. James (James 5, 16) writes



“Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.”





The author of the letter, or the homily, to the Hebrews says (Hebrews 13, 19):



“I especially ask for your prayers that I may be restored to you very soon.”





St. Paul tells us in his second letter to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 1, 11):



“…as you help us with prayer so that thanks may be given by many on our behalf for the gift granted us through the prayers of many.”



And again in his first letter to the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 5, 25):



“Brothers, pray for us, too.”



These are only two of the many instances in which Paul asks for prayers; the ends of his letters are filled with such requests.





So if prayers to a loving God to do loving things are unnecessary, why do His heralds frequently ask for prayers and advise us to pray for each other?



I, like all you, don’t know. But, as usual, I have a theory. Prayer for others is a gift not to the person prayed for but for the person doing the praying. Prayer benefits primarily the prayER not the prayEE. God is already taking care, or trying to take care, of the person prayed for. But the person who prays for someone else grows in love not only for the person for whom s/he is praying but also for God Himself…or Herself.



Any reason to talk to God is a good reason. But talking to God on behalf of someone else is living out His command of love of and service to each other.

“THEY SAY THIS CAT PAUL IS A BAD….SHUT YOUR MOUTH…BUT I’M TALKIN’ ABOUT PAUL!”

12/21/12



The Apostle Paul was one tough son of a, er, gun. He may not have always been the nicest guy in the group, and certainly was not the most agreeable, but he was the veritable Dick the Bruiser of the Apostles. This is completely understandable; he had a very tough job: to travel the world to often hostile lands to preach the gospel to people who often were not receptive and who could express that lack of receptivity in some of the cruelly enthusiastic, to say the least, methods of the time. Further, in these travels, he had to contend with people who, like he, were Pharisees, and thus who would like nothing more than to shut him up by any means possible. This was not a job for the lily-livered.

The story that most exemplifies the toughness of Paul is one that is often glazed over in a quick, or even not so quick, read of the Acts of the Apostles.



Paul is on his first missionary journey with his pal Barnabas. He starts in Antioch, a city in which he was already spent some time and the city in which the followers of Jesus were first called “Christians.” (Acts 11, 26) He does pretty well with the people of Antioch, and especially the Gentiles of the town. (Acts 13, 48) But then his former buddies, the Pharisees showed up and “stirred up a persecution against Paul and Barnabas,” forcing the pair to vamoose before they get stoned, and not in the way we in the modern world interpret that verb.

Paul and Barnabas move on to Iconium with the same results. The Pharisees (“the unbelieving Jews,” Acts 14, 2, the term Paul (and John and Luke) uses for the Jewish religious authorities, not the Jewish people in general) are on his tail and again “stirred up the Gentiles” and Paul and Barnabas make a quick exit before the rocks come out.



The duo end up in Lystra, where Paul cures a lame man (Acts 14, 8-10), which really wins the people over, though not in a way Paul would have preferred. He has to persuade the people that he is not Hermes and that Barnabas is not Zeus (Acts 14, 11-18). Once he convinces the Lystrans that he is, like them, only a man, who shows up again but the Pharisees? They once again manage to stir up the crowd, and this time Paul doesn’t escape and is stoned. The Lystrans drag him out of the city and leave him for dead. Paul’s disciples gather around him and, lo and behold, he isn’t dead. That is remarkable enough and is usually the part in the story when readers zone out. But the next sentence (Acts 14, 20) is even more astonishing.



“But when the disciples gathered around him, he got up and entered the city.”



So Paul goes to Lystra, gets stoned, and is left for dead. When he recovers, he doesn’t do what you and I would have done, i.e., get the he(ck) out of there. He goes right back into the city the residents of which had just stoned him! Maybe he’s a little touched, but he’s definitely tough…and fearless.



After Paul and Barnabas leave Lystra, they head to Derbe and then, in a passage people mostly gloss over, head back to Antioch via Lystra and Iconium. (Acts 14, 21) So he goes back to each city in which the people just a little while before had been preparing to line rocks in his direction.



The man was a glutton for punishment, one supposes. But Paul’s hunger for doing the Lord’s will transcended what most people, in both the modern and ancient worlds, would consider his craziness. Thank God Paul was a tough, stubborn, and perhaps a little crazy, man.

THE WEDDING FEAST AT CANA: A WHOLE LOT OF PARTYING GOING ON…AND MARY’S COMMAND FOR THE AGES

11/27/12




Just about everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike, is familiar with Jesus’ first miracle at Cana; i.e., His turning water into wine. (John 2, 1-12) The story certainly has its moments, especially when the none the wiser headwaiter is surprised by the quality of the newly created wine and says



“Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now.”



Somehow, those of us who have been known in the past to enjoy an adult beverage or two can relate, only many of our stories do not deal so much with new wine as with, say, Budweiser and Buckhorn (The latter was 69 cents a six pack, unless one could find it on sale, when I was a young man…a long, long, time ago. It could only be drunk at near frozen temperatures due to a taste that approximated dishwater in which pots containing lots of onions had been washed. But it completed the job cheaply after one had imbibed several Budweisers.), but I digress. Also, Jesus didn’t mess around; when He made wine, He made good stuff, consistent with His whole approach to life.



The miracle at the Cana wedding feast, however, is more than an interesting and entertaining story. I find two aspects especially intriguing and they are at least ancillarily related.

First, John says that the jars or jugs into which the water was poured and from which it was dispensed as wine were not ordinary jugs, but, rather “six stone water jars there for Jewish ceremonial washings, each holding twenty to thirty gallons.” (John 2, 6, New American Bible) So, first, we are talking about some serious drinking here. Second, and more important, note that everything in John is loaded with symbolism and has at least two meanings. In this case, the replacement of the Jewish ceremonial washings with the new wine of Jesus Christ is interpreted as Jesus’ replacing of the old Jewish law with the new covenant of His message and His blood. That is doubtless true. But the replacement of the ceremonial washings with the new wine of Jesus can also be interpreted as the replacement of rote and sometimes empty ritual with the true worship of God “in Spirit and truth” (John, 4, 24). Not all of that empty ritual took place 2,000 years ago in the Holy Land; many still mistake the rote practice of ritual with true worship of God and of His Son.



Second, “the mother of Jesus” (John 2, 2) (who, interestingly, is never named in John’s gospel), gives the servers a command that transcends the ages:



“Do whatever he tells you.” (John, 2, 5)



She was speaking not only to those few attendants who unwittingly, but obediently, became instruments in Jesus’ first miracle. She is telling all of us to “do whatever he tells you” that so we, too, can become instruments in Jesus’ ongoing work. This command of Mary, the only command of Mary in the gospels, is all that we need to do.



The problem of course, is trying to determine what Jesus tells us. God speaks to me and He speaks to you, but never as clearly as we would like. And the problem is compounded by the legions of people who presume to speak for Christ and insist that we do whatever they tell us because, after all, they speak for Christ. And many of these same people seem to insist on the preeminence of ritual, which is sometime good and sometimes not so good, but never capable of leading to salvation. See my 10/22/12 post ST. PAUL, ST. JAMES, AND SALVATION BY FAITH.

WIVES SHOULD BE SUBMISSIVE TO THEIR HUSBANDS?

10/29/12

 

Tomorrow's (i.e., 10/30/12's) first reading for Mass in the Catholic Church is the now infamous Ephesians 5:21-33, which contains the following passage:

 

Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.
For the husband is head of his wife
just as Christ is head of the Church,
he himself the savior of the Body.
As the Church is subordinate to Christ,
so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.

 

The admonition to wives to be submissive to their husbands is offensive to the modern ear, so offensive, in fact, that the Church provides an alternate reading, Ephesians 5:2a, 25-32, which excludes that reference.

 

The most obvious explanation for Paul's admonition is, of course, historical context.   But there is more to that explanation than meets the eye.

 

Was St. Paul, the author of Ephesians, the raging male chauvinist, perhaps even misogynist, that he is sometimes accused of being?   Yes, by standards of today but by not by standards of his day.  

 

It was a matter of course in Paul's day that women were not considered the equals of men, so much so that Paul's advice to women to be submissive barely raised notice, let alone objection.  (It is indeed one of the gifts of God that we have made so much, but not yet enough, progress in our regard for women in advanced societies; less developed of today's societies, sadly, still regard women with little more than scorn and, tragically, sometimes do so in the name of God.   But I digress.)   The portion of this passage that did raise eyebrows, if not hackles, among Paul's listeners, followed the above quoted lines:

 

Husbands, love your wives,
even as Christ loved the Church
and handed himself over for her to sanctify her,
cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,
that he might present to himself the Church in splendor,
without spot or wrinkle or any such thing,
that she might be holy and without blemish.

 

Paul goes so far as to say

 

So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.
He who loves his wife loves himself.
For no one hates his own flesh
but rather nourishes and cherishes it,
even as Christ does the Church,
because we are members of his Body.

 

Love your wives?  And love your wives as you love your own flesh?  In that era, and in that area where the Roman military and Greco-Roman culture dominated, women were regarded as little more than chattel and wives were more or less traded as parts of business deals, large or small.   Doubtless there were many instances in which men did love their wives, but generally when that condition prevailed that love developed over time; love was not a consideration in the deal that was marriage in Greco-Roman culture.   Lust perhaps, and probably rarely, but love?   Rarely, if ever.

 

So what was truly revolutionary to the ear of Paul's time was his admonition to husbands to love their wives.   Telling wives to submit to their husbands was the same old same old.   But telling husbands to love their wives was so out of the ordinary, and threatening to the normal course of things, that it could have, and doubtless did, get Paul in trouble.

 

In Paul's further defense, he concludes this passage, after relating a larger point about the relationship of Christ to the Church being very much akin to the proper, loving relationship between a man and a woman, with a reiteration of his advice for men to love their wives:

 

In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself

 

and a change in the verb describing the proper relationship of a woman to her husband

and the wife should respect her husband.  (Emphasis mine)

 

Though we wish Paul would have added something like

 

and the husband should respect his wife,     

 

who, even today, would argue with that?

 

So, yes, Paul sounds like a male chauvinist, at best, to today's listeners.   I cringe when I hear the above passage, and I am sure most of you do, too.   But give St. Paul a break; he was operating in the 1st century Roman world and was effectively sticking it in their eye by telling men that they should actually love, rather than own and do with what they would, their wives.   By those standards, Paul was a champion of women's rights, as was his Master, but the latter is grist for another mill

 

YOU MEAN EVERYBODY GETS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN LIFE…FOR FREE!?

10/27/12




As part of my post-Communion prayer and meditation today, I was trying to enumerate all the things for which I am grateful. Of course, the list is way too long for any of us to possibly enumerate. We tend, though, to start, and maybe end, our lists, with the obvious things and often, though not necessarily, the material things:



Our families

Our freedom

Having been (most of us) born in America during peace time

Our homes

Our education

Our friends

Our church and our faith

Our health

Our pets

Our cars

The great food we in this country eat daily as a matter of course

The beauty of the season…



Again, the list is too long to enumerate.



It occurred to me, as I tried to scratch the surface of the list, that the thing for which I ought to, and I think and hope I am, be most grateful is the presence of God in my life, that God wants to be and is my friend, my Father, my protector, my Creator, and my Savior and that He will never leave me. Perhaps a time will come when we will not feel all that grateful, and for good reason. That time has doubtless come for many of you; terrible things happen, friends and family leave us, we lose our jobs, our money, our standing in the community. But God is our constant; He never leaves us and, while He doesn’t promise us that life will be good or easy, He does promise that He will be with us for it.



Then something else occurred to me: the thing for which I should be most grateful, the presence of God, is something EVERYONE has. Some people reject His presence, but, even in those cases, He is never far from them and they can once again be in His presence for the mere asking. So EVERYONE, rich and poor, good and bad, hard working and lazy, good looking and not so good looking…EVERYONE…has the most important thing in life.



I don’t know about you, but this is not entirely a happy thought. People, including yours truly, work hard (or, perhaps in my case, perhaps we ought to just leave it at work) to achieve things. Material things, of course, but also friends and family, education, etc., if we think about it, require work and effort, hence forth the old adage, for instance, that to have a friend you have to be a friend. The work we do, especially in the case of our families and friends, is often, in most cases almost always, not unpleasant, indeed it is usually rewarding and fun. But for many of us the work we do to obtain the material things, and often the work we do to be a better friend, spouse, or parent, can be difficult, strenuous, exhausting, tedious, dispiriting, and/or something we would just rather not do. Yet we do whatever is necessary to achieve the things we, and the people we love, need and want…and harbor a very understandable resentment of those who don’t.



But the thing we most need, the most important thing in our lives, the presence, the Fatherhood, the friendship, the comfort of God, requires NO efforts; it is always there for us…and anyone, even those we consider not all that worthy, have it, or at least have ready access to it. If this isn’t somehow troubling to us, there are at least two possible reasons.



First, we haven’t grasped, or haven’t bought into the idea that God’s presence is indeed the most important thing in your lives and everything else, by comparison, is either ephemeral or, like our families, derive their value because they are manifestations of God’s love for us and our love for Him. This probably describes most of us, including yours truly. We may intellectually understand the preeminence of God and His presence, but haven’t fully accepted it.



Second, we have truly achieved that level of selflessness that should be the aim of our lives, the thing that God most wants us to achieve, and, therefore, that other people can have what we most treasure for the mere asking does not bother us. This condition does not describe most of us, including yours truly, and St. Paul, who says (Romans, 3:23):



“For all have sinned and fall short of he glory of God.”



In a sense, this having fallen short is a human condition that we can strive to, but probably never will, overcome in this life. This is perhaps a good thing, yet another gift from God for which to be grateful. It’s pretty frightening to imagine a world in which we all realized, and internalized, the paramount importance of the free gift of God’s grace, were perfectly fine with EVERYONE having access to that gift, and acted accordingly in our material affairs. One does not have to a fervent believer in free markets to imagine the impact such an attitude would have on the world’s living standards! But that is perhaps grist for a discussion of the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew, 20:1-16).

ST. PAUL, ST. JAMES, AND SALVATION BY FAITH

10/22/12




The first of today’s (Monday, 10/22/12’s) readings in the Catholic Church comes from the second chapter of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, concluding with verses 8-11:



For by grace you have been saved through faith,

and this is not from you; it is the gift of God;

it is not from works, so no one may boast.

For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for good works

that God has prepared in advance,

that we should live in them.

This is far, far from the only place in which Paul has made the point that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ and not from our works, our devotion, dedication, or anything else we can do, have done, or will do; faith, not works, saves us and we incapable of achieving our own salvation. All the novenas, all the Masses or services we attend, all the confessions we make, all the work among the poor and the sick, all of the personal sacrifices we make for others will not win us salvation. Salvation cannot be won or earned; it is a free gift from God, won by the sacrifice of His Son on the cross and His resurrection from the dead. Paul could not be more explicit in making this point than he is in this passage.



Does this mean that works are worthless, that we are free to do whatever we please as long as we believe in God? Of course not, for at least two reasons.

First, our good works are a manifestation of our faith, a sign of our faith. He who says he has faith in God and then acts in a manner contrary to God’s wishes, or to sound morals, may believe in God but he has no faith in God. As James said, (Chapter 2, vs. 18-22, New American Bible):



Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works. Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our Father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works and that faith was completed by the works. (Emphasis mine)



The minor point here is that I love St. James; he tells it like it is (“you ignoramus..) and provides me solace, or at least justification, when I, as is my wont in my blogs and elsewhere, put the proper label on someone.



The major point here is that believing is not faith; even the demons believe that Jesus is the Christ, as demonstrated in several of his exorcisms. Faith is deeper than belief. That faith is demonstrated, or, as James puts it, completed by works. Anyone can say “Oh, yeah, I believe that Jesus is Lord.” But true faith is demonstrated by the way we live our lives—with an awareness of Christ. And it is living in this awareness, rather than living by the rules, that saves us.



The second reason that good works are necessary lies in the old expression that God has no hands or, with a slight variation, that we are the only hands God has. If God is to accomplish His work of salvation, we must do our very large part in spreading the word of God so that others may have faith in Him and thus be saved. We can do so with words, but, as St. Francis of Assisi said,



Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.



and



It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching.



Again, we demonstrate our faith through our works and we preach the faith through our works. Further, God needs us to accomplish His work of salvation; without us, nothing, or very little, gets accomplished in saving the human race through faith in Him and in His Son.

ST. PAUL, MEET FATHER DAN MALLETTE…A MAN AFTER YOUR OWN HEART

9/27/12




Father Dan Mallette, pastor of St. Margaret of Scotland Parish since 1977, and still pastor until Sunday, September 30 of that parish on the eastern stretches of my old neighborhood, is being forced out of the rectory by Cardinal George. Father Mallette contends that the Cardinal promised that Father Mallette and his dog Tuffy would be able to live at St. Margaret for life. “I love it here and I love the people.” Now, however, according to Father Dan, the Cardinal says the rectory at St. Margaret is unsafe and needs to be repaired and, according to Archdiocesan spokeswoman Colleen Dolan “his (Father Mallette’s) safety has not been assured there in recent years.”

So suddenly the rectory at St. Margaret needs to be repaired; it’s strange that the need to repair the rectory did not seem urgent until a new pastor is due to be installed. And as for Father’s safety not being assured, one would have thought the Archdiocese would have figured that out when two thugs broke into Father’s bedroom in 2002…and were promptly dispatched by the then 70 year old ex-boxer. Or maybe it should have become apparent last December, when two other thugs broke in and beat Father Mallette to within an inch of his life. The safety, or the need for repair, of the rectory was not an issue then, even for the man most directly involved. But now, when Father Mallette is being pushed out, the rectory, in which Father wants to live out his life, is in disrepair and Father is suddenly in danger? As Father Mallette said, “Bull----.”



A few stipulations before I go on:



--I know Father Mallette. Though he has never been my pastor, he has done wonderful things for me and for people close to me throughout the years. Though we live about fifty miles from St. Margaret and the church we normally attend in the old neighborhood is Sacred Heart, not St. Margaret, I make it a point to get to St. Margaret’s each Good Friday to pray along with Father Mallette and the parishioners who get there on that solemn day. The Church has done a lot of hurtful and harmful things of late, but this one is personal for me.



--No one is arguing that Father Mallette should not retire. He has been a wonderful pastor for his largely black, but, thanks to Father Mallette’s connections, charisma, personality, and efforts, still very diverse congregation. But he is 80 years old and has been pastor for 35 years, well beyond the mandated 12 year tenure for pastors. The issue is not his retirement but his ability to stay in the parish, in the home, and among the people he loves.



--Father Mallette has been described as “a living saint.” Though he would probably argue with that description, those of us who know him wouldn’t. But his being a living saint does not mean that Father Mallette is not a tough guy who can be irascible, stubborn, and, at times, profane. Those of you who read the New Testament will recall that St. Paul had the same qualities.



--The Cardinal is currently battling with cancer, so it is difficult to criticize him at this juncture. However, he did decide to stay on the job despite his cancer and thus cannot be exempted from criticism that comes with the job.





So what to make of the Cardinal’s being forced out of his residence at St. Margaret’s?



--The new pastor, a Father Bill O’Donnell, is stepping into some giant shoes and I can understand his wanting to establish his own identity and his desire to step out of Father Mallette’s giant shadow. However, a deal’s a deal and if the Cardinal said Dan Mallette and Tuffy could live at St. Margaret for life, they ought to be allowed to live there. The Cardinal, through his spokeswoman, Ms. Dolan, questions Mallette’s claim that the cited promise was ever made before launching into the now standard and incessant drivel about Father Mallette’s “safety” that has suddenly become an issue now that Bill O’Donnell wants to run his own show.



So whom do we believe, Father Mallette or Cardinal George? I know Father Mallette. I trust Father Mallette. I don’t know Cardinal George and I don’t reflexively trust anyone even if he is a Prince of the Church. For this, I have been accused of “not being a Catholic.” I disagree, but I digress. The point in this case is that I believe Father Mallette, not the Cardinal, or, rather, his spokeswoman.



--I don’t know Bill O’Donnell, but, given the type of guy who seems to be getting ahead in the Church of late, I am forming a pretty good picture of him in my mind. That Father Mallette has said of Father O’Donnell



“What I don’t understand is why he has to be so mean…he’s a genius at being a pain in the ass.”



only fortifies that image. Perhaps the old rectory on Throop needs refurbishing only because it is not up to Father O’Donnell’s expectations of the type of place in which a priest is entitled to reside.



--Yes, the rules say that pastors should serve only twelve years, but, as I said before, no one is arguing that Father Mallette should not retire, only that he should be able to live out his years among the people he loves, as he says the Cardinal promised him. Why would that be so hard? While it’s unusual for a pastor to stay on at his old parish, it’s not a completely foreign practice. And when one considers that, without Father Mallette, there may very well have been no St. Margaret of Scotland at this juncture, can’t the tough old guy’s wishes be respected after all he’s done for the church…and the Church?



If Bill O’Donnell is such a weakling that he can’t operate in the admittedly formidable shadow of Father Mallette, maybe he should get a nice, quiet parish in the suburbs somewhere. St. Margaret, with its many challenges and its diverse congregation, needs a tough guy like Father Mallette, just as the ancient church at Corinth, with is many challenges and diverse congregation, needed a tough guy like St. Paul.







For more of my thoughts on politics and the ironies that permeate life, along with a healthy dose of what some call cynicism but I call realism, see my other posts on The Insightful Pontificator.


For more of my thoughts on political issues, see Mighty Insights at Rant Political.


For some of my thoughts on financial issues, see Mighty Insights at Rant Finance.