One thing that annoys me a lot is the romanticizing of poverty. The argument from poverty has become a popular fallacy in homilies, in the pathetic appeals of political wannabes for votes, in government officials eager for sympathy. This is pathetic. I don't like this thing about immersing yourself with the poor. The thing is to give them the chance to get out of poverty. Priests should live in slums not to glamorize them but to mobilize the community to get rid of the squalor of the slums.

Mommy, at noontime three years ago, Jet phoned me and told me that you could not be roused from sleep.

I rushed to your bedside...you were gone. You never failed us. We failed you many times but we know that you loved us immensely. It was your joy to see us happy. It was your joy to see daddy happy.

I wish that I had told you more often how much you mean to me. How I wish I had acceded to your wish that we would go riding around together in the afternoon. How I wish I had taken you with me in all the trips you wanted to join me, join us.

The principle of sufficient reason;
Whatever exists must have a sufficient for being, and for being the thing that it is.

This is the priciple that underlies every meaningful WHY.
It is the principle that underlies science and philosophy.
It cannot benjustified. It is a first principle. It is the way we are wired to think.

The trouble though is that we do not recognize its limits, when there is and can be no sufficient reason for x and for it to be x.

Why does she love me? Does that question even legitimately anticipate an answer?

WHEN YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH A COURT DECISION....
- Do not be too quick to cry "corruption"!
- Do not precipitously shout "undue influence"!
- My father was an appellate justice; my brother is a trial judge, many of my friends are judges. - They are good people, they are honest people, and they will not allow themselves to be influenced.
- They live modest lives because they never allow themselves to be bought.
- And one of the crosses they must bear is to render UNPOPULAR

This is not a question of the “weaponization of the law”. This is a silly term to use. The law is a weapon. It is the State’s weapon and it can so function and be more than mere precept or admonition only if it is a weapon. It is a matter of hijacking the legal system, of conscripting legal and judicial processes for partisan ends. In all such situations, there are always two victims: the legal system itself that suffers an erosion in its legitimacy and society, the cohesion of which in