All the blogging software for this site seems to have changed. Lots of new (and confusing) functionality.

I’ve been too busy keeping track of this guy to blog much lately. I’ll try to get a couple of Cute Kid Pics up in the not-too-distant future.

We almost had 47-year-old Barack Obama throwing out the first pitch at the Nationals’ home opener this week, minutes before 46-year-old Jamie Moyer threw out the real first pitch for the Phillies. So it got us to wondering about this momentous matter of vital national interest:

When was the last time any pitcher started a game who was older than the president of the U.S. of A?

The easy guess is during the John F. Kennedy administration, but sorry. That would be incorrect. The actual answer:

When he was 59 years old, Satchel Paige started one game for the old Kansas City A’s on Sept. 25, 1965. Was it a gimmick? Absolutely. But Paige was still 2 years, 1 month and 20 days older than President Lyndon B. Johnson at the time. So a note’s a note.

And that, according to our research, is the only time this has ever happened. In fact, the only other really close call came in 1993, during the Bill Clinton administration. Nolan Ryan and Clinton were both 46 years old for most of that season — but Ryan was 5 months and 12 days younger than the president. Oh, well.

This will be the 25th Notre Dame graduation during my time as bishop. After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation. I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith “in season and out of season,” and he teaches not only by his words — but by his actions.

My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life.

…

Even as I continue to ponder in prayer these events, which many have found shocking, so must Notre Dame. Indeed, as a Catholic University, Notre Dame must ask itself, if by this decision it has chosen prestige over truth.

Tomorrow, we celebrate as Catholics the moment when our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, became a child in the womb of his most holy mother. Let us ask Our Lady to intercede for the university named in her honor, that it may recommit itself to the primacy of truth over prestige.

#25 - GRAN TORINO
#24 - TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE
#23 - UNITED 93
#22 - BRAZIL
#21 - HEARTBREAK RIDGE
#20 - GATTACA
#19 - WE WERE SOLDIERS
#18 - THE EDGE
#17 - THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH, AND THE WARDROBE
#16 - MASTER AND COMMANDER
#15 - RED DAWN
#14 - A SIMPLE PLAN
#13 - BRAVEHEART
#12 - THE DARK KNIGHT
#11 - THE LORD OF THE RINGS
#10 - GHOSTBUSTERS
#9 - BLAST FROM THE PAST
#8 - JUNO
#7 - THE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS
#6 - GROUNDHOG DAY
#5 - 300
#4 - FOREST GUMP
#3 - METROPOLITAN
#2 - THE INCREDIBLES
#1 - THE LIVES OF OTHERS

As I look at some of these selections, I come to the realization that “Best” is clearly meant to modify “Conservative” here, and not “Movies.”  Because I can only think of about 5 or 6 of these that I would consider great films.  (A correlary: I don’t think the order is important.  At least I sure hope it isn’t.  If 300 and Forest Gump are towards the top of just about any list, I’m not thrilled. )

Of all of Ramirez’s glowing statistics and accomplishments, nothing stands out as this: In 16 Major League seasons, he has played on one with a losing record, and his teams (Cleveland and Boston before Los Angeles) have gone a cumulative 368 games over .500.

It appears to be DONE.  I like that Ned and Frank pretty much paid him what they offered him 4 1/2 months ago.  Way to stand firm, guys.  (Not sure what this means for Boras.  I’m sure he’ll spin it into a “win,” though.)

Stark’s got a bit MORE.
 
 

That’s Jamie Bell.  And he’s the new TINTIN:

Steven Spielberg has set his cast for “The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn,” the first installment in the 3-D motion-capture trilogy that Paramount Pictures and Sony Pictures Entertainment are co-financing.

“Billy Elliot” thesp Jamie Bell will star as the titular character, an intrepid young reporter whose relentless pursuit of a good story thrusts him into a world of high adventure. Daniel Craig will co-star as the nefarious Red Rackham.

Film, which has been cloaked in secrecy during pre-production, has begun principal production in Los Angeles. It is set for release in 2011.

I’m pretty neutral on Bell.  Just another sign of Jackson’s influences, methinks.  He doesn’t look as mischevious as SANGSTER did, and I’m pretty sure there’s no ballet involved.  But Bell’s age seems to be a lot closer to Herge’s intentions.

I love Craig as Rackham.  I’m also pleased that they’re starting with The Secret of the Unicorn.  It was Herge’s personal favorite, at least until Tintin in Tibet.  And it’s got a longer story arc, if I remember correctly - Unicorn, Red Rackham’s Treasure, and then (depending on your view) The Seven Crystal Balls and Prisoners of the Sun. 

Makes a lot of sense from a “this might be a huge hit, and we’ll want to make a lot of others, so let’s have something lined up ” perspective.  Which is lightyears better than the “Indiana Jones was huge, but we don’t have any idea what else we want to do, so let’s just cook up something totally absurd” one.
 

The Vatican on Friday rejected an apology from a bishop whose denial of the Holocaust caused international uproar between Jews and Catholics, saying it did not meet its demand for a full and public recanting.

British Bishop Richard Williamson, who was ordered to leave Argentina and is now in his homeland, on Thursday issued a statement in which he said, “To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said, before God I apologize.”

But chief Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said Williamson’s statement “does not seem to respect the conditions” set forth by the Vatican on February 4, when it ordered him to “in an absolutely unequivocal and public way distance himself from his positions” regarding the Holocaust.

Perhaps I should have read THIS a bit more carefully.

The positions of Bishop Williamson with regard to the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the Holy Father, as he himself remarked on 28 January 2009 when, with reference to the heinous genocide, he reiterated his full and unquestionable solidarity with our brothers and sisters who received the First Covenant, and he affirmed that the memory of that terrible genocide must lead “humanity to reflect upon the unfathomable power of evil when it conquers the heart of man”, adding that the Shoah remains “a warning for all against forgetfulness, denial or reductionism, because violence committed against one single human being is violence against all”.

In order to be admitted to function as a Bishop within the Church, Bishop Williamson must also distance himself in an absolutely unequivocal and public way from his positions regarding the Shoah, which were unknown to the Holy Father at the time of the remission of the excommunication.

Now I’m curious.  Father Lombardi’s statement is so brief, I’m not quite sure what to make of it.  Is he saying that Bishop Williamson’s latest attempt doea not fulfill the criteria necessary for him to be “admitted to funcation as a Bishop within the Church?”  Because the way the article is written makes it sound a bit broader than that - more of a “we reject this man’s apology” tone to the piece than a “doesn’t fit the bill for reinstatement” one.  But I’m not at all sure that the Vatican’s previous statement is even calling for an apology.  It’s calling for a change of heart, which will require the Bishop to study the matter further.  That, combined with Lombardi’s use of the “does not seem to respect the conditions” language, makes me wonder if the article is trying to make a different point than he was.

Besides, there’s a ton of other material that needs to be covered before any of these four Bishops will be “admitted to function as a Bishop within the Church.”  This requirement for distancing on Williamson’s part is just one step in that process.
 
(Father Z. ASKS an interesting question: “…whatever else may happen with Bp. Williamson, will unambiguous apologies be required now from the more avid pro-abortion Catholic politicians?  If there are concerns that someone would deny that 6 million Jews were killed in WWII, and apologies are demanded from such a person, is there going to be equal concern over those who promote or participate in a far more extensive killing of the innocent?  Will Catholic pro-abortion politicians be required to issue apologies, as unambiguous as that which they require from Williamson… heck any apology at all…. for voting for abortion rights?  I’m just askin’.”)