Achitecture done right; thankfully not Wright

One of the more influential Western architects, Frank Lloyd Wright has left behind a legacy of insipid, uninspiring, flat structures (picture, below). Indeed, when it comes to the style of Wright, the only thing left to marvel at is the boundless adoration and approval his work enjoyed.



(I suspect there is more to the veneration of modernism than simply an American desire to be in vogue. But that is for another day, and another post.)

I wish here to contrast the banality of Wright with the beauty of authentic design.

Take, for example, Duncan G. Stroik Architecture, LLC, based out of Indiana.

See for yourself the transforming power of human desire, effort and creativity at its finest.

Rhode Island Catholic

In 2005, the Diocese of Providence, RI was blessed to receive a new pastor: Bishop Thomas J. Tobin. Consistent with the growing trend of new bishops and priests, Tobin (59) is concerned more with the salvation of souls than with promoting scandal or wasting millions (from the collection basket) on modern monstrosities.

For instance, yesterday Tobin announced a complete revamping of the diocesan paper. To get an idea of what sort of changes His Excellency is making, contrast the new name of the paper with its old name. Starting today, The Providence Visitor will be the Rhode Island Catholic. Commenting on why the need for a new name, Tobin quipped that "Visitor" sounded more like a tourist guide than a Catholic publication.

And let there be no doubt -- this paper is no tourist guide.

An editorial in today's paper states, “We will not print opinions that are in contradiction of church teaching — any more than a newspaper for, say, Greenpeace would print a letter in support of the slaughter of whales.”

With a circulation of about 30,000, Catholics throughout the diocese also get to read the bishop's column titled "Without a Doubt," which this week slams Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani for his support of abortion rights.

You can read the column in full here.

Allow me to post a few excerpts:

"I have no idea why I received an invitation to Giuliani’s fundraiser. I don’t know the mayor; I’ve never met him. I try to avoid partisan politics. Heck, I’m not even a Republican. But most of all, I would never support a candidate who supports legalized abortion.

"Rudy’s public proclamations on abortion are pathetic and confusing. Even worse, they’re hypocritical.

[chop]

"Rudy’s explanation is a classic expression of the position on abortion we’ve heard from weak-kneed politicians so frequently in recent years:

"“I’m personally opposed to but don’t want to impose my views on other people.” The incongruity of that position has been exposed many times now. As I’ve asked previously, would we let any politician get away with the same pathetic cop-out on other issues: “I’m personally opposed to . . . racial discrimination, sexual abuse, prostitution, drug abuse, polygamy, incest . . . but don’t want to impose my beliefs on others?”

"Why is it that when I hear someone explaining this position, I think of the sad figure of Pontius Pilate in the Gospels, who personally found no guilt in Jesus, but for fear of the crowd, washed his hands of the whole affair and handed Jesus over to be crucified. I can just hear Pilate saying, “You know, I’m personally opposed to crucifixion but I don’t want to impose my belief on others.”

[chop]

"Rudy’s defection from the Catholic Faith on this moral issue is not unique, of course. Catholic politicians of both parties, nationwide, have followed a similar path in abandoning the Faith for the sake of political expediency: Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Pat Leahy, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden come quickly to mind. And on a local level, of course, Congressman Patrick Kennedy and Senator Jack Reed. How these intelligent men and women will someday stand before the judgment seat of God and explain why they legitimized the death of countless innocent children in the sin of abortion is beyond me. (But God, really, I was personally opposed to it, but just couldn’t do anything about it.”)

"Oh well, as you can see by now, I won’t be attending the fundraiser for Rudy Giuliani. If Rudy wants to see me, he’ll have to arrange an appointment at my office. We’ll talk about his position on abortion. And if he wants a photo, it will cost him $1,500 as a donation for the pro-life work of the Church."


Now if only we could get Archbishop Brunette to do the same with our very own Catholic Regress.

Are the pictures fake?

Believe it or not, one of the arguments commonly used by pro-aborts when confronted with graphic images of abortion is... "They're not real!"

I am posting here what I consider to be a comprehensive rebuttal to this blatant denial of (heart-wrenching) truth. I will copy my commentary, unedited, straight from a discussion in the online forum of Facebook (free membership required).

Are the graphic pictures faked?

This question seems to be a recurring point of contention in our abortion debate. Choicers insist on rejecting the pictures of abortion, claiming they are not real and are only a fabricated, deceptive ploy of Lifers to persuade by emotion.

For instance, in the thread titled “Genocide Awareness Project – May 23 and 24” Ciera P (post #25) argues, “Emotion is a powerful tool at promoting severe PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder] at women who ahve suffered miscarriages. Graphic, insensitive pictures like that have no place in a public place...Using falsified pictures of bloody miscarriages are inappropriate.”

In post #94 of the same thread, S.B. states, “TOM... Listen to me, please. I'm NOT debating what a HEALTHY, IN UTERO, 10 week fetus looks like. If we could reference a healthy 10 week fetus, yes... those pictures are accurate... but UPON REMOVING THE FETUS FROM THE BODY, it will NOT look like that... because the parts would be COMPLETELY destroyed while being removed.”

And again, S.B. insists that, “if I thought the pictures were real I wouldn't discredit them. I'd think they were distasteful, but from my own experience...I knwo that's not what it looks like.” (post #110)

Or, take Amanda Hitchins who has worked at an abortion clinic. In the thread “I am personally against abortion but…” she had this to say, “The surgical abortions end up in a biohazard bag, and literally, i swear on my life, look no different from a heavy period. Without a microscope, there are no identifying features that would make you say "ooh thats a fetus!" as opposed to "thats someones used sanitary pad!” (post #439)

I would really like to put this issue to rest, by starting a new thread.

Here are the reasons why I believe the graphic pictures depicting abortion should be accepted as authentic by Choicer and Lifer alike.

(a) They have been examined by a pathologist and notarized as authentic.

(For those who, like Amanda, go so far as to claim that “if you look closely, all of the signatures are EXACTLY the same, like not a single pen stroke is different, and they're all on the exact same space on the line” [post #441, “I am personally against abortion but…”], I’d invite you to compare these two signatures: Signature 1 and Signature 2. Note, in particular, the difference in spacing between “Abigail” and “Allen,” as well as the shape of the letter ‘A’ in Allen…and…of course, the conspicuously missing, “M.D.”)

(b) The Center for Bioethical Reform is in the process of taking to court a number of pro-aborts who accuse them of photo fraud.

(c) The images bear close resemblance to healthy unborn babies of the same gestational period. Cf. Picture #1, Picture #2, Picture #3, Picture #4

(Just an FYI, the “Week 12” references are actually of 10 week-old babies, since those websites begin counting the baby’s age from the woman’s last menstrual period. Similarly, subtract two weeks from the ‘hands-and-feet’ captions to get the precise age of the fetus.)

(d) If the pictures are fake, why won't NARAL and Planned Parenthood simply expose this "vast pro-life conspiracy" by bringing out the *real* pictures of aborted fetuses?

(e) If the pictures of abortion are fake, is this video footage of an abortion *in progress* also bogus? (First link; Chapter 1 of Choice Blues.)

(f) In addition to the authentication provided by the pathologist whose signature is notarized and referenced in (a), a former abortionist and attorney, Anthony P. Levatino, M.D., J.D., has also given his expert testimony that the pictures found at www.abortionno.com accurately depict aborted babies of stated age.

His letter reads, "I, the undersigned, having performed induced abortions earlier in my career, have examined the photos depicting the aborted human embryos and fetuses used by The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform in their public education projects (www.abortionNO.org). It is my professional opinion that the photos depict aborted human embryos and fetuses and that the depicted aborted human embryos and fetuses are accurately captioned as to age, in weeks since fertilization."

Dr. Levatino’s resume and contact information can be found here.


I have provided six very good reasons to accept the pictures. No doubt, for some, no amount of evidence is sufficient. Amanda and S.B. will surely ask us to rely on their own testimony that a first trimester aborted baby (natural or induced) looks nothing like the pictures.

While I’m positive some early miscarriages and abortions would prove indiscernible, I refuse to believe that arms, legs, hands and toes are “completely destroyed,” shredded, minced, or ground beyond recognition in all (or even most) abortions.

I submit that to hold such a belief is to embrace the same absurd attitude of denial anti-Semites do today with regard to the Holocaust.

The evidence that abortion is an act of violence which destroys a baby through dismemberment and hemorrhaging is, quite frankly, overwhelming.

Choicers should accept the pictures as authentic so that we can move forward and continue to debate abortion while maintaining some semblance of intellectual honesty.

No photo? No vote.

Quin Hillyer has written a good piece (worth a read) over at the Examiner.com. In it he discusses the recent 2-1 decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling the State of Indiana was within its rights to require photo IDs at voting polls.

Naturally, the Democratic Party is petitioning the Supreme Court to reverse the decision.

We all know why. Without a vibrant level of voter fraud, Democrats are forced to win elections...democratically.

And that's just not fair.

More GAP footage

Additional video clips of the Genocide Awareness Project at Western can be found here.

Genocide Awareness Project: May 23 & 24

For two days last week Western for Life (the pro-life club at Western Washington University), hosted the Genocide Awareness Project which exposes the injustice of abortion through graphic imagery of aborted babies posted on signs 4' X 8' in size.

Needless to say, the display was rather unpopular.

On Thursday a student managed to throw four or five eggs at the signs and get away. A couple hours later two students threw zip-lock bags filled with green paint, ruining several more signs.

But this sort of vandalism is only indicative of the truth that these students' consciences are alive and well. Seeing the images of a dismembered baby is resonating with their sense of terrible injustice. They express and direct their anger at the pictures; they are really only angry with abortion.

Over time (and with God's grace) many a heart will be converted by showing people what abortion does to innocent unborn children.

True to form, the school paper The Western Front, has provided some very biased video coverage of the event.

Bach

For all the faithful followers of Ab Opposito, my apologies for pulling a Houdini.

Here's a piece by Bach that I think fits well with my totally random reappearance on May 27.

Enjoy.

Get this widget | Share | Track details