Dave Griffey, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Shea

Saturday, October 15, AD 2016



Dave Griffey at his blog Daffy Thoughts wrote this about the recent comments by Rush Limbaugh regarding sexual morality:


What Rush Limbaugh said is here.  What Rush Limbaugh didn’t appear to say in the least was that rape is defensible.  I’m no fan of Rush, and you’ll notice I seldom reference him.  Not that he isn’t right sometimes.  Sure he is.  My favorite reference is the time he observed that the Baby Boomers are the first generation in history that didn’t have to grow up.  Good observation there.

Nonetheless, he’s problematic enough for me to look to other sources for opinion.  Still, with that said, he doesn’t deserve to be falsely accused of something as horrific as defending rape unless it can be demonstrated that he unequivocally said rape is defensible.  What he appears to be saying is what many have said over the years, and what we are witnessing today.

Assume, just for a minute, that Donald Trump is innocent of the accusations being made against him.  And assume, just for a minute, as opposed to what Major Garrett on CBS said yesterday morning, that he doesn’t have to provide evidence to show he is innocent, but that the accusers have to show evidence that he is guilty.  Assuming this basic ‘innocent until proven guilty’ standard that was so crucial in the late 90s, we can say that what Trump has said about and to women is vulgar, despicable, deplorable, wrong, bad, horrific, and anything else to drive home the point.  If, that is, we say there is such as thing as objective morality.

The problem Rush has is that those who are saying this are some of the same who stood idly by 4 years ago when similar things were said about Michelle Bachmann, 8 years ago when worse was said about Sarah Palin, her daughter, her children, and almost 20 years ago when more than one accuser of Bill Clinton was called a liar, a whore for the Republicans, and trailer park trash.  All while we were told that when it comes to sex, nobody cares, there are no real objective morals, it’s up in the air, it isn’t important, and it doesn’t even matter if we lie or commit perjury. As long as you have consent – and even that seemed to depend on who was saying there wasn’t consent involved – everything was fair game.

It’s a fair statement and a fair observation.  Perhaps he didn’t do the best job conveying that view.  But nothing in the complete statement suggests he was defending rape or in any way suggesting rape is not wrong or that there is a problem with being upset about rape.

Mark Shea showed up in the combox and, as usual, was the quiet voice of reason:

What he did was sneer that critics of non-consensual sex are “rape police”. Normal people just call them “police”. Because non-consensual sex is rape. And you defend it. Because you guys are twisting yourselves into pretzels defending the sex predator you have made your Dear Leader. Good job.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Dave Griffey, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Shea

  • Mark Shea is an idiot.
    Hillary Clinton is a murderous pathological liar.
    Her husband Bill Clinton is a rapist.
    Mark should shut the heck up before increasing his stanatd as an asinus maximus any more.

  • If any are undecided, let us look at the practicality or even the pragmatism involved. If Trump is elected President, and does something terrible, we can impeach him in a fortnight. If Hillary, forget about it. We are toast. Any questions?

  • Mark Shea is IMO quick to open his mouth and “remove all doubt”.
    (For the source of the modern aphorism referred to, see Proverbs 17:28)

  • “But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police.”

    Sorry, but that is mocking the seriousness with which the Left treats consent. If Limbaugh were a more reasonable, magnanimous fellow, he would have said, the Left is right to insist on consent just as all good people do, and then made his point from there. But as usual he chose to mock them because he doesn’t view them as human beings worthy of respect but as the enemy.

    Since the original story was supposedly about “intellectual honesty”, how honest was Limbaugh’s insistence that the Left is uniformly in favor of bestiality? Sounds like ridiculous slander to me – much worse than the sort of libel of which Shea is being accused. But perhaps someone can link to credible evidence that most of the same people attacking Trump over consent are also approving of bestiality. Shouldn’t be too hard since the person everyone is defending on this site asserts that this is such a common liberal value.

    I also find it a bit ironic that the post begins with the assertion that Shea has made a full conversion to the Left. Is that intellectually honest?

  • “I also find it a bit ironic that the post begins with the assertion that Shea has made a full conversion to the Left. Is that intellectually honest?”

    Yes, as anyone who has read Mark, as I have, since 2003 could quickly discern. The way I phrased it was full throated conversion to the Left. His support this year of Hillary Clinton, a complete pro-abort Leftist, is a demonstration that his conversion to the Left is virtually complete. Mark used to refer to Democrats as the evil party.

    “Sorry, but that is mocking the seriousness with which the Left treats consent.”

    Nothing could adequately mock the contemporary Left:


    “But as usual he chose to mock them because he doesn’t view them as human beings worthy of respect but as the enemy.”

    Leftists, by and large, are at war with normal human beings. Mockery is the mildest reaction that they should expect from people not members of their cult.

    “Since the original story was supposedly about “intellectual honesty”, how honest was Limbaugh’s insistence that the Left is uniformly in favor of bestiality?”

    Now you be honest Sancho. Thirty years ago the idea of gay marriage would have struck most Leftists as an absurdity. Ten years ago the idea that biological men have a right to use the ladies room would have struck most Leftists as equally absurd. When it comes to sex who knows what bizarre beliefs now will not be seized upon by Leftists as a sacred right? A political movement that views the slaying of unborn kids by their mothers as right and good is a movement that can embrace anything.


  • You don’t suppose Mark is the beneficiary of some of that sweet, sweet Soros cash we’re all talking about do you?

  • No. I have no doubt that Mark believes every word he writes and his beliefs are honestly held and not subject to bribery. More’s the pity for him.

  • No. I have no doubt that Mark believes every word he writes and his beliefs are honestly held and not subject to bribery. More’s the pity for him.

    His beliefs, such as they are, seem to derive from a stew of emotion, much like Rod Dreher. The thing is, Dreher’s reflect his protean moods (and abiding anxiety) and, bless his heart, he does backtrack when he’s overtaken by events. Shea’s seem to derive from a consistent substrate of rage, as well as doubling-down on whatever intemperate position he’s taken previously. Shea isn’t right or left. He’s a man deeply confused about the relationship between faith and public life (a vexing question anyway), ignorant about policy choices (we all are to a greater or lesser degree), and given to highly partisan reactions (contra, for example, George W. Bush and anyone who might defend him). I suspect his real problem is a deficit of liberal education which would help him filter and assess what he reads in the papers, as well as an unfortunate decision many moons ago to make his work what should have been his hobby. Amy Welborn also did this, but she’s not much invested in political questions and not contentious by default. William Donohue is highly contentious, but makes it a point only to address a restricted portfolio of questions.

  • You totally lost me with that pic of the business end of a big bore revolver . . . I’m in dire need of a cold shower.
    I agree. I haven’t read Shea in more than ten years and I’m enjoying it.
    If Shea’s all-in for Hillary, it tells me three things. One, his true religion is leftism not Christianity. Two, he is a despicable excuse for a human being. Three, he has lump of excrement for brains.
    Forget the shower. I’m rapidly running out to buy a couple hundred rounds of ammunition.

Limbaugh on Planned Parenthood

Friday, July 24, AD 2015






Rush Limbaugh tends to take a lot of grief from Catholic commenters.  Some of it is deserved, but much of it is not.  When it comes to abortion, he has been one of the major media voices opposing it relentlessly for over a quarter of a century.  When he dies he will have his sins to answer for as we all will.  He will also have tens of millions, who never got to speak in this Vale of Tears, eloquently pleading his case before the Most High.  Here is Limbaugh on the current Planned Parenthood Worse Than Murder, Inc. atrocity:

Well, now we know why the advocates for the right to choose have been so advocating.  Always try to follow the money.  Here are these leftists that want everybody to believe that they don’t care about money, that everything they do is charitable because they’re nice people and they are compassionate and they’re understanding and they’re all for protecting the little people who get trampled on by the big people, and look who is doing the trampling. 

The greatest example of the essence of innocence that I can conjure, a baby in the womb.  I mean, it hasn’t done anything to anybody.  It represents and is new life.  It is the essence of innocence.  It cannot speak for itself.  It cannot protect itself.  It cannot defend itself.  While being the essence of innocence, it is the most vulnerable it will ever be.  And here come the people promising and telling and guaranteeing that they are protecting the rights of the little people, that they protecting the vulnerable, they’re making sure that the little guy, the vulnerable, the powerful, don’t get trampled on by who?  The rich, the powerful.  Usually this means Republicans. 

And yet in another case study of reality, exposing fraud, who actually is trampling over the defenseless, the innocent, the vulnerable?  The very damn people who claim to be their protectors, the protectors of liberty, individual rights, the right to choose, what have you.  The same people who want these body parts for stem cells that have yet to prove worthy of research, worthwhile, any of that.  It is just sick and it is completely and totally unremarked upon in the Drive-By Media. 

Carly Fiorina this morning on her Facebook released a new video responding to this second and latest Planned Parenthood secretly recorded video.


Somebody just asked me, “Rush, how can these people do this?  How can they not know what they’re doing to a baby?”  Ladies and gentlemen, I wish I could answer that for you.  I mean, these are the people that are extracting what they hope are workable, usable body parts. They’re taking great, great care not to crunch, not to crush, so what they extract are actual what they hope usable baby body organs they can sell. 

Now, how a person or the people doing this can then turn around and say that what they’re dealing with is an “unviable tissue mass,” I can only the guess.  I think you have to have the concept of evil. You have to understand it, and you have to acknowledge that it exists.  It’s a real thing.  It’s the same people that say “unviable tissue mass” or it’s actually an illness, pregnancy leads to an illness and so forth.

Every crazy justification they’ve offered for abortion, the very same people doing that are now extracting usable body parts and selling them for profit.  I mean, what are they telling themselves about what they’re doing?  They’re probably lying to themselves about medical research and saving lives.  They probably come up with “one life to save millions.”  It’s probably not hard to imagine the contortions they undergo to justify this. But the clearly think they’re doing a service.

They clearly believe they are serving mankind and medical research.

But to anybody with common decency, it’s just sick.  And it’s something that I dare say the vast majority of people in this country would never, ever dream would happen here.  We went to war to stop people like this before!

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Limbaugh on Planned Parenthood

  • I’ve always liked Rush. Even when he had his drug issues and people wanted to discount what he said. I didn’t understand what they meant & they couldn’t understand that “truth is still truth, even if a druggie says it.”

  • Whatever Rush Lmbaugh’s siins are, I have always liked him as well. I suspect my sins outweigh his, and his efforts for the unborn outweigh mine.
    As for the people of Planned Parenthood, what they are doing is what the Nazis who stood trial at Nuremburg had done.

  • Dittos. I don’t get to listen to him much, but I like him. My dad liked him as well.
    ” I mean, what are they telling themselves about what they’re doing? They’re probably lying to themselves about medical research and saving lives. They probably come up with “one life to save millions.” It’s probably not hard to imagine the contortions they undergo to justify this.”
    Perhaps, because I haven’t been able to listen in quite some time, I’m misreading Rush here, that he seems a bit mystified about these people in what they are thinking and doing and why they don’t stop and see what they are doing is evil.
    Some years ago, my dad observed that other scientists around him in the chemical industry (but it could have been in other ones as well) would spend years going down a wrong path…and yet even when all the evidence was there that they were wrong, they stayed wrong. Why? Too much life invested in being wrong. Too much ego. I would add too much money made, and hey, those scientists (and likely abortionists as well) have kids to put through college. Where are these “tissues” going anyway? Your local state university, especially if it has some kind of medical school or cadaver lab.
    I had a friend take to Facebook recently trying to justify this, and it seemed to me she was trying to continue to justify to herself her “pro-choice” stance. And it was so sad. I got the impression she knew this was wrong, but gosh, she has spent her life being a feminist and pro-choice. Who wants to wake up one day and realize he has wasted his life-time and energy-into being so very, very wrong?

  • Ah, the Mengeleites have been exposed for what they really…and so much of the world shrugs.
    What they are selling is “sustainable” parts.
    Meanwhile the friends of the UN say: hey, as long as we can prevent some CO2 from harming the world?

  • Pope Francis, Cardinal Dolan, Bishop Murphy (LI NY), USCCB, catholic-in-name-only colleges/universities, et al . . . deafening silence.
    Is Rush more Christian than that pope and American catholic elites????
    I’m coming to believe certain black-hearted protestant slanders. The crickets tell me that many so-called Catholics are not Christians.

  • Yup – peace, justice, mercy and hope that this, too, will pass with the appearance of some other atrocity(s).

    Silence was golden when people were still learning to think.
    In cases, such as infanticide (described in biblical stories with morality interwoven) , self control, miscarriages of justice, and inhumanity – willful murder – silence from ‘men of God’ is an embarrassing atrocity. Moloch has got their tongues, and they’ll yet again waste WYD giving no legacy to those who are truly poor in knowledge of Christianity and the essential narrow gate.

  • “I’m coming to believe certain black-hearted protestant slanders. The crickets tell me that many so-called Catholics are not Christians.”

    The truth is that so many Christians are not Christians. It is not slanderous to say so, except when seeing motes and not beams.

    If only we really thought about what we mean when we say “I do” to the question “Do you reject Satan?” during the recommitment of our baptismal vows. Over and over it can be maintained that we fail to exercise our moral imaginations, we fail to think about how Evil can grow and reach into our lives. We fail to see life as it is, we sleepwalk through life with our sweet dreams, and we are then surprised when Evil is dug out of it’s dens.

  • T. Shaw, you’re just “starting” to release “that many so called Catholics are not Christians.?”

    42 years post Roe v Wade, Catholics are still the largest single group to be endorsing with their names and supporting with their votes the only pro-abortion political party supportive of and promoting abortion while being 100% apposed to a Right-to-Life Constitutional Amendment. That support gives the Democratic Party the ELECTORAL POWER to keep abortion legal, and in doing so, supports Planned Parenthood with over !/2 billion $$$$ a year or taxpayer’s money to salvage useable, viable body parts from that “mass of tissue cells” being butchered that somehow has manufactured.

  • T. S. make that “realize.”

    I fight for the unborn, first of all, because I had a year of embryology in college, including lab work in which I created “new” life by dissecting chick embryos up to x number of hours after conception and re-cultured those slices in which they grew into new complete embryos. Those early cells are called stem cells today. Science does not know, yet, how to “control” their growth.

    But, I returned to the faith of my upbringing after college and Roe v. Wade, to correct the wrong done by that Supreme Court ruling. I knew when life begins. I find myself fighting the U.S. bishops who have all but abandon the unborn in favor of “the poor, and peace, and justices,” I have discovered that the biggest opponent the unborn have are “faithful Catholics” who endorse the pro-abortion Democratic Party. It is a major sin to join the KKK, or the Nazi Party, a mortal sin, with no exonerating conditions. The sin of joining those organizations is against the 5th Commandment, in Catholic teaching. How, then, can joining the Democratic Party NOT be a mortal sin? It’s a mortal sin with no exonerating conditions to join organizations that promote racial and religious discrimination, but it is NOT a sin to join an organization that supports and promotes the murder of innocent unborn babies those Catholics profess to believe are created by God?

    I’m concerned that those Catholics, including the clergy at the highest levels, are going to find themselves being told by Jesus, upon his return, to line up on “is left side.” And they will exclaim how that can be when they did so much for “the poor and strangers.” Needless to say, the bishops have interpreted Mt. 25, 35 for political reasons, for the benefit of the Democratic Party. Read the footnote in the Catholic New American Bible – to learn why those Catholics,, especially the clergy, are risking their salvation.
    And read why Cardinal Bernardine accepted the offer to be the Chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Pro-life Committee upon the condition that he was going to expand the definition of pro-life “to keep the pro-life movement from falling completely under control of the right wing conservatives who were becoming its dominant sponsors.” (‘Cardinal Bernardin’ sub title “Easing conflicts – and battling for the soul of American Catholics” pages 243, 244; by 30 year long friend Eugene Kennedy. The Cardinal lived 7 years after this book was published and never refuted what the author friend wrote.)

    BTW, Cardinal Bernardin was the “official leader of Chicago Catholics (the largest community of Catholics in the U.S.) and Chicago, is a city run by Mayor and 50 City Council Members called Aldermen; the Mayor and all 50 Alderman are elected Democrats. The Cardinal , and the U.S. bishops, added non sinful, prudential judgement issues to the meaning of “pro-life;” issues that the Church teaching favored liberal Democrat positions.

  • Oh, I heard Rush’s broadcast the day he talked about PPH. He spent the first hour and a half discussing it while every other talk radio or TV show was talking about Donald Trump and what he was saying.

  • Rush Limbaugh has always been the greatest defender of Holy Mother Church.
    More so then the well known Cardinals and Bishops that hob nob with the Catholic pro choice friends of PPH.
    He will have those millions of defenseless babies aborted to speak on his behalf.
    He is fearless and certainly not lukewarm, and defends the truth.
    God Bless and protect him.

  • Limbaugh’s failed marriages and his oxycontin addiction have done nothing to dull his razor sharp mind when it comes to the current political landscape.

    One must understand that Limbaugh is an entertainer who uses politics and his conservative viewpoints to entertain, inform and bring to light that which the Democrat Party and its allies want to remain hidden.

    The Catholic Church in North America treated Vatican II as if an entirely new church was started. Almost everything before it was sent to the dumpster and modernism was embraced. Ugliness was the new norm in church architecture and blandness was the new norm in the liturgy. The Church changed its focus from being with Christ in the next life to being an anti-poverty group – with government subsidies.

    The hierarchy is Democrat and wants to stay that way. This has NOT changed since Vatican II. Thus we have the silence on abortion, artificial birth control and homosexuality. Thus we have the attitude to “let ’em all in” when it comes to immigration, whining about the rarely used death penalty and tacit support for federal government expansion into healthcare.

    Being Catholic isn’t about idolizing our clergy, be it priests, bishops or the Pope. It is about worship of Christ. Church history tells us of the many times the Church leaders screwed things up. Reform will come from the remnant of the laity.

  • Donald,

    I ran across this article today. It has been completely ignored by Fox News. I would suspect because they’re in the tank for Jeb Bush. This is a huge story. Bush is another cafeteria Catholic, who claims he’s pro-life, but has exceptions for rape, incest and “life of the mother”. Now this revelation……..


PopeWatch: Rush

Wednesday, March 26, AD 2014



Father Z highlighted some interesting commentary from Rush Limbaugh with comments by Father Z:

RUSH:  Well, folks, the left’s honeymoon with Pope Francis may be coming to an end.  Remember the pope went out there and released an economic encyclical or document in which I analyzed it as being almost Marxist. And this caused just… There were eruptions in voluminous amounts. In fact, there were volcanic eruptions in the media.  And all of a sudden the left, which hates the Catholic Church, fell in love with the pope!

Remember that?  Oh, if I come out criticize him, the pope’s gotta be a good guy. So they fell in love with pope. “The pope is a great guy!” But now the Vatican’s chief justice feels that President Obama’s policies have been hostile toward Christians.  “Vatican Chief Justice: Obama’s Policies ‘Have Become Progressively More Hostile Toward Christian Civilization’ — The Vatican’s chief justice feels that President Barack Obama’s policies have been hostile toward Christians.”

Now, this is the Vatican. This is an official. It doesn’t have to be coming from the pope in order for it to be official. [Wellllll…. Rush… you need some tutoring here….] “In an interview with Polonia Christiana magazine [HERE] — and transcribed by Life Site News — Cardinal Raymond Burke said that Obama ‘promotes anti-life and anti-family policies.’” So the Vatican is out defending Christianity, defending itself, and this is gonna cause a fissure between the media, which was falling in love with the pope. [Not to mention fissures in the catholic Left.  Wait until the feminists start demanding that their tame males turn on Francis because Francis will never support the ordination of women.]

They weren’t falling in love with the Catholic Church, don’t misunderstand.  They were falling in love with the pope.  They thought, they really thought… Here, again, is another classic illustration of total ignorance.  They really think that they can make the Catholic Church moderate its tone.  They think they can bring the Catholic Church into what they call the Twenty-First Century.  They think that this pope might actually legalize gay marriage, sanction it in the church.

They think this pope might actually allow women to be priests.  They think this pope might actually lighten up on its pro-life position.  They really believe that. They really think the Catholic Church is just another political organization.  [Which is why the catholic Left talks about the Church’s “policies”.] If they exert enough pressure, and if they get the right pope in there, they can work on him to bring the church forward into the Twenty-First Century.  And this from the Vatican chief justice is just a major, major slapdown.

The left is not going to be happy about this.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to PopeWatch: Rush

  • t doesn’t have to be coming from the pope in order for it to be official.

    Depending on what they mean by official, coming from the Pope may not make it so. Who hasn’t spent time explaining that no, the Popes’ prudential views (more usually “what the press reported as the Pope’s views” but I digress) aren’t binding?

  • It doesn’t have to be coming from the pope in order for it to be official.
    Rush is right again. It must come from the Pope only in order for it to be dogma.

  • “….the left’s honeymoon with Pope Francis may be coming to an end ”
    That can’t happen soon enough. They can stop perpetuating their myths through him, trying to legitimize the illegitimate. Maybe something will happen with the visit between the president and the pope to somehow shine a light on the Truth.

  • While with God all things are possible, it is too sanguine to think that the upcoming meeting between the American President and the Pope is going to “shine a light on the Truth.” Benedict XVI remarked that Pilate’s “What is truth?” was more a statement than a query, snorting disbelief in the possibility of Truth. Obama is a package of lies and deception, who has unleashed with the left all kinds of ills on America, from the destruction of marriage to lawlessness. A mere brush with a Pope, especially one who has been less than stellar in HIS enunciation of truths, is hardly likely to bring out more than inane lispings of cliches, and perhaps even mutual back-slappings of approval.

  • Pingback: Is Pope Francis an Agent of Change - BigPulpit.com
  • Bad form to have no link to Father Z’s piece (or to have a link that is too hard for me to find).

  • You are correct on that blogger. Normally PopeWatch is quite careful about linking quoted material but failed to do so on this occasion. The omission has been remedied.

PopeWatch: The Cover of the Rolling Stone

Thursday, January 30, AD 2014


But the thrill we’ve never known
Is the thrill that’ll getcha when you get your picture
On the cover of the Rollin’ Stone

Dr. Hook, The Cover of the Rollin’ Stone

Although it is only a pale shadow of the former influence it had in our culture, the fact that Pope Francis is on the cover of Rolling Stone does signify that he has become a hero for much of the cultural left.  The story itself by Mark Binelli in the magazine is astonishingly wrong headed, even by the standard of the raw ignorance which most of the denizens of the media reveal whenever they seek to discuss Catholicism.  A sample will suffice:

After the disastrous papacy of Benedict, a staunch traditionalist who looked like he should be wearing a striped shirt with knife-fingered gloves and menacing teenagers in their nightmares, Francis’ basic mastery of skills like smiling in public seemed a small miracle to the average Catholic. But he had far more radical changes in mind. By eschewing the papal palace for a modest two-room apartment, by publicly scolding church leaders for being “obsessed” with divisive social issues like gay marriage, birth control and abortion (“Who am I to judge?” Francis famously replied when asked his views on homosexual priests) and – perhaps most astonishingly of all – by devoting much of his first major written teaching to a scathing critique of unchecked free-market capitalism, the pope revealed his own obsessions to be more in line with the boss’ son.

Continue reading...

18 Responses to PopeWatch: The Cover of the Rolling Stone

  • It just gets better.

    Rolling Stone Magazine readers are typically young liberals and heavily influenced by pop culture and trends. Or are the tragic type who think they are still young, culturally aware trendsetters.

    So, I think this is great- bringing the Pope to the sector of the population that would normally turn it’s nose up at organized religion and their respective figures (unless of course if those figures happened to be the Dalai Lama or Deepak Chopra).

    And despite the fact they misrepresented the Pope in the article, how horribly “uncool” will they look when the Pope is in the news for a good old Catholic comment? After all that WILL happen. It’s only a matter of time…

    The media, sectors of it anyway, are so fickle, and just plain stupid.

  • I’m surprised they didn’t air-brush a doobie in Holy Fathers hand.

  • “I’m surprised they didn’t air-brush a doobie in Holy Fathers hand.”

    No one air-brushes anymore. It’s Photoshop now.

  • George.

    Thanks for the correction.

  • Hah hah. The Pope has SOUL! Go figure.
    I don’t think the dopes in the press are going to trip him up. It sort of reminds of of Jesus with the Pharisees and Saducees.

  • Does anybody remember Laurel and Hardy?

  • “Put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch.”

    It’s an honest hope that this Fisher of Men will have nets filled to overflowing for our Merciful Lord Jesus. Regardless of the opinions of Laurel and Hardy, this Holy Father may help bring some lost sheep home.

  • Which journalism school did Binelli attend? Or did Rolling Stone just grab the copy boy with the Italian surname for credibility. You know, cause the Pope lives in Italy and all. And where did he do his research? Entertainment Tonight? One commenter on another blog summed it up- be glad they spelled his name correctly, and move on.

    Binelli’s comparison of Pope Benedict to Freddy Kreuger is vile. Can you imagine doing the same thing to Obama, and using the monkey jokes…sorry, but seriously, where do these people get off?

    I might google Binelli to find a photo if him, so I can compare him to a character out of The Hobbit.

  • Ez.

    Precious…. 🙂

  • Ok, so Mark Binelli is cited as a contributor to Men’s Journal, is a published author and thinks Detroit is the Place to be…in other words he is a try-hard, writer struggling to write about anything meaningful, and missed the opportunity in his Pope Francis piece to give his writing meaning. But, I’m I know God uses our cynicism for good.

    I’m slightly disappointed he doesnt look like a character out of The Hobbit. But, If he thinks Pope Benedict looks like a menacing character with knives for hands, like soneone who could give children nightmares, then he should know photos of him show him sporting the same clothes, or I’ll fitted attire, and his facial expressions come across as though he is permanently sniffing cheese, with an inability to crack a smile. Oh, and he looks either malnourished, or lives off a diet of cigarettes and black coffee. Probably the stress of searching for meaning. If he sniffs harder, he’ll notice it under his nose 😉

  • Well he got something right. The times are always a’changing, – but he doesn’t seem to know that the Truth never does.

  • Philip: “Regardless of the opinions of Laurel and Hardy, this Holy Father may help bring some lost sheep home.”
    I love Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, especially the March of the Wooden Soldiers and their triumph over the Bogey men.
    It is my constant prayer that all may be one in Christ.

  • Mary De Voe.

    Your prayer is close to Jesus’ heart.

    No disrespect intended, but my Father Frank loved the antics of L&H.. I was born in 61′ and only caught a glimpse of their act. I liked their friendship on the screen. Always coming back to a shake of the head and the raised shoulders.

  • Not sure how many heard Kresta yesterday, but a very good segment was produced on the media, left and right’s sensation with PF. Al’s points are solid, as usual, and brings home much for all to learn I believe.


  • Philip: No disrespect taken. Stan Laurel was the brains and Oliver Hardy was the heart. Pope Francis’ face resembles that of Stan Laurel. And every time I see Pope Francis I am reminded of Laurel and Hardy… comic geniuses. And now, Pope Francis, prayer genius.

  • Wait until these liberals discover that Pope Francis is Catholic.

  • Actually, 80% of Rolling Stone subscribers are baby boomers–Age of Aquarius throwbacks from the 60s.

    The rest of us simply outgrow Rolling Stone magazine and leave “childish ways”–like liberalism–behind…

  • Pingback: PopeWatch: Bishop James D. Conley | The American Catholic

PopeWatch: Rush

Thursday, December 19, AD 2013



PopeWatch assumes that Rush Limbaugh is viewed as the Devil Incarnate by many Pope Francis fans, for his criticisms of the economic portions of Evangelii Gaudium, but actually Rush has a much shrewder view of the Pope than the empty praise that the Pope is currently getting from many leftists who eagerly embrace the Pope as an unexpected ally.  From the Limbaugh show yesterday:

RUSH:  Back to the pope.  You’ll note that I didn’t spend any time in the first hour on this.  I am not striving to keep this alive.  I’m not striving to make this about me.  But the Drive-Bys won’t let it go.  They can’t turn this loose.  The latest, Piers Morgan on CNN last night on Piers Morgan Live.  He had the noted author and well known conservative raconteur, Ann Coulter.  And during his conversation with Coulter, he wanted to bring up me and Il Papa, Pope Francis.  And to set it up, this is what he said.

MORGAN:  Rush Limbaugh keeps whacking away at Pope Francis, which is, you know, it’s like watching the devil incarnate taking on Mother Teresa. But tell me why the right seemed to have some big issue with a man who appears to be non-bigoted, incredibly humble, a force for good, somebody perhaps revolutionizing an anachronistic church, dragging them kicking and screaming into the real world, why would this enrage the likes of Rush Limbaugh?

RUSH:  Okay, that’s the question.  The devil incarnate.  I am the devil incarnate.  The pope is Mother Teresa.  And you’ll note, folks, look, I don’t want to be subtle about this.  It’s Christmastime.  Can I take a little credit for something here? (interruption) What, you think you know what I’m gonna say?  Here is an avowed leftist who every other day of the week despises the Catholic Church, Piers Morgan.  And he’s no different than anybody else out there on the left.  Every other day of the week, they hate the Catholic Church. They don’t like the pope because of abortion, because of gays, gay marriage, because of no women priests, because of AIDS, you name it. They do not like the Catholic Church at all, except now since I, the devil incarnate, have entered the fray. These people that hate the Catholic Church are now its biggest advocates. 

Is that not amazing?  Is that not a wonder to behold?  I don’t care that he calls me the devil incarnate.  He’s speaking out positively about Christianity now.  He doesn’t know it.  He thinks the pope is modernizing the church in the way the left thinks it should be. See, to the left, a religion is nothing but a malleable, bendable, shapable, flakable, formable thing.  And like anything else, it ought to accommodate whatever the will of the people is at that moment.  So if the people are for abortion, the church ought to be, ’cause the church ought to relate to the people.  It’s a total lack of understanding of what a religion is, what a church is. 

For him to call the church anachronistic shows he has no understanding of religion whatsoever.  The church, Catholic Church, whatever church, is what it is.  And if you don’t like it, it’s your role to get out, not change it.  Christianity is Christianity.  The various denominations are what they are.  If you don’t like it, you move on.  It’s not up to the church to modernize. It’s not up to the church to be dragged kicking and screaming into the real world.  Yet that’s what he thinks Pope Francis is doing, and it’s not what Pope Francis doing. 

Pope Francis is as rock rigid anti-abortion as any pope ever has been.  The same thing on gay marriage, female priests, and all of this.  But I still think, folks, that it is a wondrous thing that because of little old me, the devil incarnate, leftists who would otherwise and do otherwise revile the Catholic Church are now singing its praises.  It is a beautiful thing.  But that whole sound bite is proof that Piers Morgan, incompetence incarnate, hasn’t the slightest idea, slightest understanding of religion.  Religion is timeless. 

Continue reading...

12 Responses to PopeWatch: Rush

  • Heh, well put by Rush. It sort of reminds me of that old joke about the Preacher and Taxi Cab driver getting their houses in heaven. When it comes to evangelizing Francis could be the carrot, and Rush is the stick.

    Actually I’m surprised Shea hasn’t latched onto this with something like “CNN agrees with me! Rush incarnation of Devil on earth!” (seriously some of his complaints started reaching the point where one wondered what his religion was)

  • Piers Morgan again. A third-rate hack who was sacked as editor of the Daily Mirror (a left-wing populist rag), for publishing a bogus story. Can the US not refuse him a visa? The downside is that he will spend more time this side of the pond, but at least we will be spared the embarrassment of his posturing abroad and giving the impression that all British journalism (rather than most of it) is crap.

  • Yes, many people have the misconception that the church ought to reflect the culture, that its stance on matters ought to be arrived at democratically in the sense that we have come to understand that politically in the West. This is a misconception. The church cannot change its beliefs where its beliefs solidly reflect Scripture. All the church can do is to engage the culture and adapt to it in terms of outreach. Still, parameters exist as we know.

  • I’ve read a couple things from Piers Morgan now that seem to imply any kind of prejudice, mild or otherwise, is the worst sin in the world

  • [email protected] tacky Advocate photoshop BTW (assuming that’s their original image)

  • The Pope IS ONLY INFALLIBLE WHEN Speaking ex cathedra. Hos pronouncements on economic and social matters are subject to scrutiny by the laity which has the duty to hold church authorities accountable when they are wrong.
    Slavish obedience in prudential matters borders on cultism, the pope deserves our love and respect , we we do not nor should we worship the Pope not the members of the hierarchy.
    JFK said:
    “My church does not speak for me in public matters and I do not speak for my church”
    I was taught to make my own decisions in life matters and seek church guidance on spiritual matters, many people find it easier to follow , thus the apathy that exists or simply ignorance thus we do not denounce the enemy from the pulpit but continue a compromising and conciliatory policy while they advance their agenda.
    I will quote my priest in Cuba and eventually leader of our underground group of Cuban catholic Students upon entering the fight against the enemies of our country, the Catholic church playing a prominent role on it.:

  • Something for “Popewatch” “Two Words That Catholics Need To Stop Using…..Like Now! by Emily Stimpson. CV Catholic Vote. Give me strength O Lord! I mean me, give me strength O Lord! I am going back to making my peanut butter balls.

  • Too bad the world doesn’t revolve around Emily Stimpson’s above it all pose.

    I haven’t had any use for her since her bone headed review of For Greater Glory:


    Her article seems to me to be a self-back slapping for holding political positions that basically align with those promulgated by the USCCB:

    “Or, to get more specific, what about me? I’m a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, Obamacare-hating, free(ish) market-supporting, Gregorian Chant-loving, daily Mass-going girl. I must be a conservative Catholic. Right?

    But wait. There’s more.

    I’m also an anti-torture, anti-death penalty, anti-drone, pro-amnesty, preferential option for the poor-believing, organically grown and sustainably farmed-eating, alternative medicine-using, NPR-listening, Dr. Who-watching, Novus Ordo-going kind of girl. So, mightn’t I also be considered a liberal Catholic?”

    In her own way she confuses religion and politics as much as any committed leftist.

  • Whovians can’t be conservative? Goodness, I hope nobody tells…. hm… 75% of the folks I know who watch.

    About half of the second list just tells me that she’s heavy on emotion and/or gets manipulated a lot.

  • Yep, I would be among the Whovians Foxfier!

  • If you think about it, politics would be the only replacement for religion. It is the religion of this world–to build the City of Man. There’s nothing wrong with the health-life-style, but it becomes idolotrous when done for the wrong reason. Many peopel today are more concerned about their physical health than they are about their spiritual well-being and eternal destiny. And that’s scary. Even if you take very good care of yourself, you’re not going to be around for more than 80 years or so. If you have really good genes, maybe 100 to 110 and that’s about it. I just don’t see the point in getting fanatical about organic foods and juicers. Not to mention the fact that you can do everything right, hop in a car, get hit, and die that day. A point that is readily missed.

PopeWatch: Obama and Limbaugh

Thursday, December 5, AD 2013



Well, what do you know.  The most anti-Catholic President in our nation’s history is suddenly quoting popes.

During a Wednesday speech on income equality, Obama remarked, “Across the developed world, inequality has increased. Some of you may have seen just last week, the pope himself spoke about this at eloquent length.”

He went on to quote a line from Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation “Evangelii Gaudium,” asking, “How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?”

Obama called the growing income gap the “defining challenge of our time,” along with the increasing difficulty of upward economic mobility, AP reported.

That is truly hilarious when one considers that Obama has been President now for almost half a decade and that his policies have succeeded only in exacerbating income inequality with his truly wretched stewardship of the economy.  Rush Limbaugh who, unsurprisingly, has been highly critical of the economic portions of Evangelii Gaudium, recognizes that the Pope’s popularity with the port side of our political spectrum is only fleeting because of the Pope’s position on abortion, the holy of holies for the Left:

Continue reading...

17 Responses to PopeWatch: Obama and Limbaugh

  • Did the writer of this article read The Popes letter? Pope Francis is not in agreement with the left on their anti capitalism views. His words were anti CONSUMERISM, greed and envy.

    He never once uses the word Capitalism. Please, go back and re-read his actual words.

  • Everything Obama spews out is counter-factual.

    If Obama was concerned about income inequality, he would confront the income inequality between Washington, DC and the United States of America. From 2006 to 2012, DC median household income (MHI) skyrocketed 23%, while America’s MHI crash-dived 7%.

  • Pingback: Pope Francis to Create Commission on Sex Abuse of Minors - Big Pulpit
  • So much social justice . . . so little charity.

    In NJ, 50,000 sign up for on-line gambling and 741 sign up for ObamaCare.

    Obama says, “We’re not going back . . . “ to that horrid time when 87% of Americans were happy with their health insurance.

  • I read the item by Adam Shaw on FoxNews. I thought it a bit…harsh, but also somewhat understandable. Most Catholics (I know anyway) do NOT get their news about this or that Church teaching from the Catechism, or from a Catholic Newspaper such as the NC Register (or even the NC Reporter), or Catholic blogs, or websites such as The American Catholic. Or even from the local Diocesan website. Assuming they even wanted to read Evangelii Gaudium themselves (assuming of course it occurred to them to actually read it for themselves), they wouldn’t know where to look. They get their news of things Catholic from CCN, NBC, NY Times, Time magazine, Fox News, Limbaugh, whatever. I suspect Mr. Shaw didn’t read EG, until after his mind had been made up for him about what the Pope said (tried to say?) by the secular news media.

    If all I had heard about the latest Apostolic Exhortation (I wonder how many of the Catholics I know understand the different between an AE and an Encyclical–heck, I am not sure I am clear on it) was what Limbaugh had said, I think I might have just thrown in the towel and said, “No more. I will no longer participate in an organization (the Church) that does not care about my children’s future and in fact, actively promotes the destruction of it.”

    Perhaps it is time for the Pope to abandon the “wide ranging” documents and interviews that can be massaged into the latest secular-news-media message, in favor of short, clear, precise twitter feeds and FB posts, although I hear the young people are abandoning FB since it is no longer a “cool” place. Too many middle aged moms posting pictures of soccer games, dinner recipes, and Grump Cat memes.

  • I will confess that I didn’t read the Pope’s Exhortation, and I’m trying really hard to ignore the secular media. I get the tidbits from here & other Catholic blogs & commentators who I know are faithful, practicing Catholics. And I haven’t read it because I am an overly busy homeschooling mom of 3. But, I want to ask a question. Are we even called to be “equal”? I was thinking about this last night for some reason. God made us each as completely unique individuals, each with our own strengths & talents. I don’t see how we could possibly be called to be “equal.” My definition of equal may be different than someone else’s definition, right? None of Jesus’ parables talk about Him giving the same things to anyone. He talked about one guy getting 10 talents, one guy 5, and one guy 1. That’s not equal. He talked about some people working all day long & some people working for an hour, and they got the same pay. In my mind, that’s not equal. All my life, I’ve been taught, and I am training my children, to be happy for those who have, and pray for & help those who have not. It seems like the left/progressives goes out of their way to find leaders, even if they hate them in principle, to agree with their messed up ideas on how other people should live… because as we all know, “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

  • What I don’t understand is why the Pope and his aides don’t realize and anticipate the problems his statements cause.. Intended or not, if you know anti Catholics like Obama and the liberals who have recently become fans of the Pope are waiting to USE you for their benefit and turn your words around to prove their point, you might be more clear about what you are meaning. Communication 101–right ??

  • From what I can tell thus far Dan, the Pope seems fairly unconcerned about how his writings and comments are interpreted. I think that is the best case analysis.

  • Liberals want to feed the poor, but they don’t want to make them work. They want to hand out money, but they don’t want to make sure it isn’t used fraudulently. Up the minimum wage irrespective of one’s qualifications or work requirements. Punish the rich with higher taxes they didn’t earn it all by themselves. Let anyone and everyone into the county it will all work out. Encourage women to be sex machines then when the free contraception doesn’t solve all problems give them free abortions. There is no responsibility for anyone’s actions and no respect for others property or accomplishments because it is up for grabs.

  • I’ve read about 1/3 of Papa’s Exhortation between my vocational duties as wife and mother and honestly – respectfully, I disagree with his economical stance. I spoke with this yesterday with my husband knowing that it wouldn’t be long before the exhortation became a weapon of the left’s. I don’t’ agree that it is just about Consumerism… he was clear in paragraph 54 that he believes Capitalism is wrong: 54.
    In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.

    However, if what Phillip is saying from the Breibart report that there is a translation error, I will be the happiest free-market American Catholic around – I sure hope they fix this soon. If not, this too shall pass under God’s protective guidance.

  • I just wish people would speak and write and teach plainly! I read the document and as a cradle Catholic I read between the lines. I too feel that he was speaking in reference to the greed and avarice of making money a false idol. However “if you are not Catholic” or a liberal Catholic there is enough gaps to really confuse those who don’t read the Bible, or know the Catechism, or the Corporal Works of Mercy, or the seven sins, or the Ten Commandments, or the teachings of the Church on matters of faith and morals. Double speak leads to confusion. Diablo, Dante, Diabolical. The “irrational” mind, will “always” find a way to “rationalize” your personal self. “I feel so much better when I think I am not sinning or not as bad as that other guy”. Especially if you really don’t know the teachings of your faith and you choose to pick and choose your sources. Wah Lah! When I made money, I gave so much away without any fanfare. Now I am experiencing the other side of the tracks again I still understand my responsibility to the Lord and his people. I think that is what the Holy Father is talking about. Of course, dementia could be setting in and I am all wrong.

  • I must admit that I don’t read between the lines of most articles, most especially ones that hold such importance for the fear that I would be putting too much of my own ideas into somebody else’s writings and mis-construe the intention of the letter. I think that can become dangerous and cause miscommunication which leads to disaster. However, with that said, I agree that much of what was written on greed would be fixed, and so would most of our economic problems if all persons followed the example of Christ in charity of all kinds. As I read his exhortation I kept thinking of The Rich Man and Lazarus. The problem with the rich man wasn’t that he had money rather it was that he ignored the plight of Lazarus, the beggar. He did nothing to ease his medical problems or hunger. The rich man went to Hades because of his lack of charity, which was a spiritual issue, and would not have made a bit of difference if he was forced to give to the beggar. Trickling down our money to the poor should be a choice not a forced issue. God gave us our freedom to love Him – we show our love for Him by feeding, clothing, caring for His children. To do otherwise is evil. Simply said, to be forced to give takes our opportunity to love Him away. In equality, God did not make us equal. He gave specific talents of different kinds to His children so that together, we can help one another. Helping needs to come from our heart not the sword or government taxes. On this site alone I see the beautiful, philosophical writing of great Christians alongside those like me, who wish they could communicate better, but writes from the heart as best as possible. I believe being able to think and write clearly stems from first, a gift of wisdom then built upon by loads of studying and education.

    On a personal note: I know for my family, we went from living comfortably as middle-class American citizens to not even being able to buy the food we need to live week to week, and our charitable giving went down to feed our children and make the mortgage under this current administration. Our freedom to give has been taken away by higher taxes. We live in a modest home, with one car that has over 209,000 miles on it and is a gas guzzler. Our children do not have cell phones or decent clothes and our fence fell down last year. We are fixing it 10 boards at a time as money becomes more available. Trickle-down economics only hurts citizens – that has been proven across America, I know I’m not the only one suffering.

  • “Trickle-down economics only hurts citizens – that has been proven across America, I know I’m not the only one suffering.”
    I think this is a good example of part of the problem–lack of a common definitions to economic terms, or at least the terms we use in everyday speech. To my way of thinking, pretty much every economic decision I make that requires money (not all economic decisions require money) is part of “trickle-down economics”–from the groceries I buy, the swim lessons, USTA tennis league fees, gasoline, the home-school curriculum I purchase, the Christmas presents, the tree and lawn services. And yes, I even gave to the my sons’ private school fund a donation (not tax deductible, although I get no direct benefit from it) to cover the teacher’s Christmas Bonus.

    I do not see how my spending my money on this or that thing I want (or need) is a bad thing. (If it were porn, yeah, that’d be a bad thing.) Yes, I suppose, instead of paying my son’s swim coach to teach him to swim, I could just give her the money as a “charity” and allow my son to rot in front of the television, but why not require her to work for 30 minutes in order to get my money? I could just give the school my sons attend part time money and teach them science myself, but why not pay them to do a service for me I’d rather not do? To me, that is all “trickle down.”

  • Just as one must avoid the same mistake when interpreting Sacred Scripture:

    “take a TEXT out of CONTEXT and you get a PRETEXT”

    Rush and others have taken Pope Francis’ words out of context


  • People will quote Christ when it suits them and they will quote the Pope when it suits them.
    I’m getting a little tired of all the talk about theory…. would like a little less theory and a little more response to events. “How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?”
    I ask “How can it be that it is not news (what happened down Argentina way) and neither Obama nor the Pope nor Charlie Rose nor Bill O’Reilly have anything to say.
    Obama uses this opportunity to make it seem that he and the pope have the same theoretical priorities. Another quick movement of the walnut shell. We need to keep our eyes on thinking about the dignity of man, rich or poor.

The New First Amendment

Monday, March 12, AD 2012

Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan, and Gloria Steinem have written an op-ed in which they call upon the FCC to revoke the licences of radio stations that carry the Rush Limbaugh show.

That makes this a fitting time to inquire of his syndicator, Clear Channel Communications, whether it intends to continue supporting someone who addicts his audience to regular doses of hate speech. Clear Channel’s Premiere Radio Networks Inc., which hosts Limbaugh’s program, has defended his recent comments.

If Clear Channel won’t clean up its airways, then surely it’s time for the public to ask the FCC a basic question: Are the stations carrying Limbaugh’s show in fact using their licenses “in the public interest?”

Spectrum is a scarce government resource. Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh’s radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.

In the course of an op-ed calling upon the government to restrict free speech rights, the authors compare Rush Limbaugh to Joseph Goebbels.

I know that Wikipedia is not the greatest source of information, but it usually gets the basics correct.  From the article on Goebbels:

Goebbels rose to power in 1933 along with Hitler and the Nazi Party and he was appointed Propaganda Minister. One of his first acts was the burning of books rejected by the Nazis. He exerted totalitarian control over the media, arts and information in Germany.

From Webster’s dictionary:

Irony : 3 (1): incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2): an event or result marked by such incongruity

Fonda, Morgan, and Steinem might want to have a look at this book before taking to the keyboard again.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to The New First Amendment

  • So Jane Fonda’s input is to deny Limbaugh’s first amendment right to say unstudied, shoot from the hip, stupid things but let’s protect her right to compared him Goebbels. Ms. Fonda needs to study debate and learn what ad hominem argument is.

  • So… they think that one of the biggest radio shows in the USA isn’t in the public interest….

    (Yes, I know it’s the “for your own good” sense, but by that measure there shouldn’t be any music stations.)

  • Fonda, Morgan and Steinem would have received an understanding nod from Goebbels:

    “It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion.”

  • It’s only fair. Same way they serially resuscitate the “fairness doctrine.”

    The evil, unjust free market censors imbecilic, vile liberal talk by no one listening and not buying the advertisers.

    The government must censor the free market side, or the left can’t destroy freedom.

    Free speech for me; not for thee.

  • Limbaugh’s radio show is absolutely hate speech. He hasn’t claimed any of his hatred to be religious so that it’s justified (which is the method by which most hate groups get their hate speech legitimized). You really think Jesus would like him?

    Maybe you should spend a couple hours listening to flatulent idiocy and distortion of facts. It’s not a Christian radio show, and Limbaugh isn’t much of a Christian given that he’s been married 4 times.

    And maybe you should do a search for Limbaugh’s trip to the Dominican Republic where he was found with unprescribed viagra for sex with prostitutes. His voice is a taint on society and it needs to be silenced.

  • “Limbaugh’s radio show is absolutely hate speech.”

    Hate lifewrecker is not defined by what you oppose.

    “You really think Jesus would like him?”

    No lifewrecker, He would love him. That goes for you too actually in regard to Jesus, as hard as you might find that to believe.

    “Maybe you should spend a couple hours listening to flatulent idiocy and distortion of facts.”

    Spend three months listening to his show lifewrecker and then report back.

    “His voice is a taint on society and it needs to be silenced.”

    You truly do not subscribe to this freedom of speech concept do you?

  • Three has-beens wanting to see their names in print. Jane Fonda betrayed American GIs at the Hanoi Hilton. Jane Fonda and Tokyo Rose both ought to be begging for their citizenship. Gloria Steinem, the heroine of feminism, did not ever believe she would get old and arthritic. I do not know Robin Morgan and I am glad. The first two shadows darkened our nation like a cloud of locusts. They must want jobs with the Obama administration, but Cass Sunstein has got it. Cass Sunstein is Obama’s Information Czar. He has written 35 books to give animals personhood. No comment.

  • The left does not believe in the 1st Amendment, or in free speech, or in the free exercise of religion. It never has. And it never will. But its President desires to reign supreme. I hope on November 6th this changes. Imagine the howling when they will have to actually contend with people who differ from them.

  • 13,055 comments on CNN.com for the article. The comments section has been closed. Don’t go there if you still believe in the general intelligence of the average American.

    I Love this: “Spectrum is a scarce government resource.” Since when? Did Al Gore invent the Electromagnetic Spectrum, too? The only reason it’s monopolized by the government is because early broadcasters wanted their monopoly to be locked down by Federal dictate. And, guess what? Within 15 years it’ll all be silent anyway, as digital podcasts and niche web sources become more and more attractive.

    So, The Three Stoogettes may believe that dictatorial censorship would block Limbaugh’s ability to be heard. But in fact it only proves how vapid they and their Weltanschauung really are.

  • WK Aiken, the average American does not comment at CNN.com. CNN watchers are libs – which accounts for the high level of ignorance displayed in the comments.

    I agree with Mary De Voe: these are 3 long-in-the-tooth harpies who are desperately trying to remain relevant. Ironically, if this country was as intolerant of free speech as Fonda is,she would have faced a firing squad 40 years ago.

  • Donna V. Thank you. You said it better than I. I especially like “3 long-in-the-tooth harpies.”

  • Thank you Donald McClarey for taking their argument apart and supplying us with the truth. I especially like: “You truly do not subscribe to this freedom of speech concept do you?”

  • You would think that Jane Fonda, of all people, would appreciate the benefits of not using the government to punish people for doing highly unpopular things in the media — given that plenty of people would have liked to see her locked up for posing on an anti-aircraft gun that was being used to shoot down US planes during wartime.

  • The National Organization for Women has a very sophisticated decades-old media project that involves FCC committee lobbying, getting its favored candidates appointed to the FCC board, and increasing women (read:feminist) ownership of media stations. I believe this is why a *breast cancer foundation* was cast as the bad guy oppressing poor little Planned Parenthood. The press is almost entirely feminist-controlled.

    If you want to see a similar act of government censorship and intimidation, look up the EEOC commissioner’s response to Don Imus’ remarks a few years ago.

  • You would think that Jane Fonda, of all people, would appreciate the benefits of not using the government to punish people for doing highly unpopular things in the media — given that plenty of people would have liked to see her locked up for posing on an anti-aircraft gun that was being used to shoot down US planes during wartime.

    You would think that an editor at CNN might have returned the submitted text to them with a bland remark that were it published the reputations of the authors would be injured. Maybe the newsroom at CNN is as shot through with egocentric people as the editorial staff at Ms..

  • A few Vietnam veterans exercising their First Amendment rights in regard to Ms. Fonda:

  • Pingback: MONDAY EXTRA: H.H.S. MANDATE | ThePulp.it

Jesuitical 13: Rush and Georgetown

Monday, March 5, AD 2012

Part 13 of my ongoing survey of the follies of many modern day Jesuits.  Georgetown University, founded in 1789, is the oldest Jesuit college in the United States.  Last week it found itself at the center of the debate over the HHS Mandate.  How the powers that be at Georgetown reacted to all of this is instructive.

On February 16, 2012 Representative Darrell Issa (R. CA), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing on the ramifications of the HHS Mandate in regard to religious freedom.  Democrats had the opportunity to present witnesses.  Initially they were going to have Barry Lynn, a Methodist minister and Leftist political activist, and head of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, but for some reason that fell through for the Democrats.  They then proposed Sandra Fluke, identified as a third year law student at Georgetown.  Issa refused to allow her to testify on the grounds that she wasn’t testifying about the religious liberty issue but rather about a perceived need for contraception.  The Democrats, who realized that they were in trouble on the religious liberty issue, used this as an argument against the hearings, arguing that women were banned from the hearings as speakers.  This was a lie, as there were two panels which testified in opposition to the Mandate at the hearing.  The second panel included Dr. Allison Garrett and Dr.  Laura Champion who testified as to the dangers that the HHS Mandate poses to religious liberty.

On February 23, 2012, Nancy Pelosi (D.CA), minority leader, organized a Democrats only “hearing” at which Sandra Fluke gave her testimony.  Go here to read that testimony.  Among other statements she said that in three years contraceptives could cost a law student three grand.

The idea that someone at Georgetown Law School, an elite school that costs over 50k a year to attend, was crying poverty over the alleged cost of $1,000.00 a year, a sum about $800-$900 too high in relationship to the actual cost, to make illicit whoopee has its comedic possibilities, and this was  seized upon by Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday February 29:

What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We’re not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that’s right. Pimp’s not the right word. Okay, so she’s not a slut. She’s “round heeled.” I take it back.

This caused an uproar and on Thursday March 1, John J. DeGioia, the first lay President of Georgetown, released this statement:

Continue reading...

45 Responses to Jesuitical 13: Rush and Georgetown

  • Something for nothing/free lunch: the liberal prime directive: She merely wants sex and she wants GU to pay for it. That is not a new concept.

    Let’s try to save America from disparate treatment.

    To be fair and equitable, malicious Maher needs to apologize for calling Governor Palin “Slut!”, or we DEMAND Obama return the $1,000,000 malign Maher gave him.

    History lesson for liberals: Money for sex is the “oldest profession.”

    The new concept is Liberty.

  • Disparate Treatment Command:

    You are justified when you viciously slander (add laurel for foul words) a woman because you truly hate her and she’s Republican, e.g., Governor Palin.

  • Slut or slattern is a term applied to an individual who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous. The term is generally pejorative and often applied to women as an insult or offensive term of disparagement, meaning “dirty or slovenly.”However some women have demonstrated saying they’re proud of being “sluts”, and have given it a positive connotation.
    By either definition, Fluke would seem to fit the bill.

  • I don’t begrudge the Georgetown president’s full-throated defense of one of his students without his adding the caveat that he disagrees with her on the issue that made her famous. Such a defense generally needs to be done in a manner that is not watered down by “Howevers” and “Buts”.

    There is just something in the psyche of civilized people that reacts with horror to the thought of a man commenting upon a woman in a manner that calls into question her chastity. Now, maybe her testimony left little doubt in that regard, but still, to hear a man publicly comment upon a woman in such terms brings a visceral reaction that a line has been crossed in terms of genteel behavior.

    One thing I was always taught growing up is that a gentleman does not make comments about a woman that imputes unchastity to her. And gentlemanly behavior dictates defending a woman in such a situation, which is what Georgetown’s president was primarily concerned with doing in this instance..

  • I suspect that the sole pupose of the President’s letter Jay was to pick up some quick praise for himself from the powers that be at Georgetown, in Washington DC and in the Mainstream Media. As for Ms. Fluke, I think in other circumstances she would be the first to reject the traditional codes that have guided gentlemen and ladies in our civilization. Of course all of this misses the actual significance of Ms. Fluke’s testimony, which I think was rather the point of this whole media created tempest.

  • I find it ludicrous that this young woman who is apparently attending Georgetown with a scholarship is making this argument. First, if it was THAT important to her why did she attend a Catholic University. If I attended a Muslim University and then whined that I had to dress modestly then it would show me to be intolerant and maybe not the smartest cookie (I lived in Saudi Arabia for 3 years as a military wife and always covered when I went off compound. It was the correct and respectful thing to do).

    Second, can she NOT either abstain or ask her partner to participate in the costs of birth control?

    Third, I had to wonder about the other student she said was embarrassed and humiliated when she discovered birth control was not covered at the cash register when she picked up her birth control. Isn’t this woman a LAW student? Can’t she read her insurance policy? I only have a B.A. in Psychology but I read my policy to see what is covered BEFORE I see a doctor.

    They may not be sluts but this woman is definitely prostituting herself for the liberal democrats.

  • I listened live when he made his remarks, and even I forgot that he actually took the slut comment back almost as soon as he made it. Considering that what he said certainly crossed my mind, I can’t fault Rush for his comments.

  • “They may not be sluts but this woman is definitely prostituting herself for the liberal democrats.”

    It isn’t prostitution if it is done for love Lee anne, and I know that Ms. Fluke loves the far left of the Democrat Party unless she finds it too moderate for her tastes, which may wll be the case.

  • “She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception.”

    Rush misspoke here in that when it comes to the Pill, you have to take it every day whether or not you have sex frequently. Ms. Fluke might very well be a slut, but that should not be the focus of the arguments against her. Gingrich summed them up perfectly – there is no contraceptive shortage in the US, nobody wants to take birth control away from Ms. Fluke, and the issue is who pays for it.

    It is mind-boggling to me how this issue has gotten away from us. The Dems are successfully painting this as “The GOP/Catholic War on Women” and millions of idiots appear to be falling for a completely non-existant issue. In the meantime, Iran becomes more frightening by the day and I nearly had to take out a bank loan when I filled up my tank last night. But let’s keep on talking about the sex life of a 30 year old Dem activist. It’s unreal.

    And as for the reaction of Georgetown U- well, absolutely no surprise there. I tell people my entire education up until college was Catholic – and then I went to a Jesuit university.

  • Paul, it’s one thing for it to cross your mind; it is another thing altogether to publicly give voice to those thoughts. In more genteel times, such comments (regardless of their veracity) were considered to be slander per se.

  • “As a student at Cornell and treasurer of a pro-choice organization at the school, Sandra
    Fluke helped shut down a pro-life speech on Cornell’s campus by counter-protesting.”

    Miss Fluke made no secret of her activities as an undergrad. I am astonished that of all
    the thousands of applicants for the few openings at Georgetown Law, the Admissions
    Board would give a place at a Catholic university to someone with her history.

    I suppose it can be argued that all sorts of views should be represented at a university.
    However, I’ve got to wonder if Admissions would be so complaisant if she had been an
    enthusiastic member and treasurer for a racist or anti-semitic student organization.

    It would appear that, by granting one of their few places in the law school program to
    someone like Miss Fluke, “… the teachings of the Church are of small concern to the
    powers that be at Georgetown…”.

  • Jay, I agree with your posts but would add that I do not believe for a second that Ms. Fluke was hurt or insulted by Limbaugh’s remarks. My guess is she snickered as she thought about how they would be used to her advantage.

  • I agree, Mike. No doubt she wears any insult by Limbaugh as a badge of honor.

    My objections to Rush have less to do with any imagined “damage” that might have been done to the particular woman’s reputation as they are to the damage that is done to the notion of gentility whenever a man comments in such a manner upon a woman’s chastity or lack thereof. Such comments about a woman used to merit one a punch in the nose (50-60 years ago) or a fight to the death on the field of honor (200 years ago and back to the middle ages).

  • Clinton,
    I wish I was surprised, but I’m not. As you point out the advantage of welcoming competing ideas has its limits. Think Wafen SS. A Catholic law school should be concerned with how to use law to protect our most innocent fellow human beings from intentional killing, but it appears that Georgetown has other priorities.

  • Oh I understand, Jay, and agree. Perhaps I am wrong, but I did not understand Limbaugh’s rant as asserting a genuine charge; I took it as parody, especially his comparison to a prostitute one who must be provided financial assistance as a condition to having sex. While this comparison has turned out rather poorly for Limbaugh, I don’t think any listener seriously thought Limbaugh was challenging the chastity of Ms. Fluke — for a whole bunch of reasons.

  • “…I don’t think any listener seriously thought Limbaugh was challenging the chastity of Ms. Fluke…”

    Especially since Ms. Fluke herself has answered that question.

  • Why would any man would want to talk with Ms. Fluke if she were chaste?

    Does her father own a liquor store?

  • In the classic movie “Ben-Hur”, there is a scene early in the movie in which the outgoing Tribune, Sextus, asks his replacement. Messala, “How do you fight an idea?” After a brief interruption, Messala answers him: “With another idea.” That is exactly what Obama and his cohorts are doing. They can’t win if the idea is that the federal government is violating the first amendment, so they invent their own idea, which is that Republicans are trying to take away women’s access to contraceptives. This is, of course, absurd, but to quote a line from another biblical movie, “But they (the Roman people) are believing it!” (Petronius, “Quo Vadis”). It is absolutely imperative that whoever wins the Republican nomination (looks like Romney at this point, but time will tell) press this issue. This is not a fight for contraceptive rights, but for religious rights. To paraphrase James Carville, “It’s freedom of religion, stupid!”

  • Unfortunaly Obama is framing this argument with might I say….. diabolical cunninngness…….

    Just the other day my son’s piano teacher said in passing with much gusto “I wish our parish would stay out of politics”. She was reffering to the letter our Bishop had read at all masses last week. During the reading of that letter I noticed at least on person get up and walk out.

    My mother said the same thing happened at her church all the way across the country.

  • I think Joseph’s analogy with Rome is very appropriate.

  • “During the reading of that letter I noticed at least on person get up and walk out. ”

    Frankly, those who prefer Obama to the Church probably should get up, walk out, and keep on walking.

  • Pingback: MONDAY EXTRA: U.S. CULTURE WARS | ThePulp.it
  • You are all morons if you think in today’s society calling a 30 year old woman who advocates “free” contraception a slut is insulting? Do you all live under a rock? Do you not go to the movies? Do you not listen to music? Do you not listen to people between the ages of 14 and 30 conversations? “Slut” is the mildest of words that is bantered about in today’s society. This “scandal” is a joke…brought to you by people who truly hate those that disagree with them. And Fluke is one of them.

  • Somebody with more time than me needs to research… did she go to one of those “slutwalks” that were all the rage half a year or so back?

  • I read Ms. Fluker’s statement, and what it was, was the usual liberal use of “hard cases” to make us feel sorry for someone, then to drastically change policy based on the hard cases. She speaks of women needed the Pill for control of polycystic ovaries. First of all, as a woman, I know that doctors are extremely quick to prescribe the pill for just about anything, not just as an “antidote” to fertility. If a doctor recommended the Pill, I would do a great deal of research before accepting his or her recommendation, to know what my other options are. But what the liberals are trying to do is say, “Look at these poor women who are discriminated against because they need the Pill and are insured by a Catholic institution! In order to solve this problem, we must ALL be given free birth control!” Huh? If you need insurers to cover the Pill based on certain diagnoses, then you have the insurers cover the Pill for those diagnoses. It is extremely simple. It makes no sense to argue that the reason the Pill should be covered for all is because a few people are using it for recognized medical conditions.

  • AFAIK, using the pill for an actual medical condition is treated the same as any other drug with any other off-label use– policies differ on if they’ll accept it, usually along the lines of if the medication is known to be useful for that purpose. (Like Viagra for women, especially those on anti-depressants– similar use as for men.)

    So, again, standard: they use a hard case that isn’t even accurate….

  • From the comments, I have to gather that liberal, Leftist People’s Democratic Party members and supporters will lie, obfuscate, spin and generally dissemble whatever, whenever and wherever it fits their political ends. I am (yawn) shocked.

    From “Power to the People” to Machiavelli in two generations.

  • Has Ms. Fluke been expelled from Georgetown yet? She’s bringing ill fame to the institution.

    By the way, there was a SlutWalk just last year in Georgetown. Did Ms. Fluke participate? Or did she condemn it? She does call herself an “activist,” I hear.

  • Good question. Here is a celebratory post by a participant:


    Ah, yes, protesting sexism and a “rape culture” by dressing like a slut. Makes as much sense as stating that one is deprived of contraceptives if someone else is not picking up the tab.

  • The St. Augustine quote about Onan is HILARIOUS. A sperm is NOT a human being. An ovum is NOT a human being. Life begins at conception-so Onan wasn’t engaging in abortion. Sperm aren’t human. Embryos are. He needed to learn some basic biology. The Bible condemns adultery and fornication, NOT sexual techniques within marriage. He overrated Onan’s importance. I guess Augustine was of the “every sperm is sacred” ilk. Too bad Monty Python didn’t exist yet.

    For married couples, any form of sex is OK as long as it doesn’t involve artificial contraception, especially the kind that can destroy unborn life (as it says in the Didache). The Song of Songs praises sex of all kinds WITHIN marriage. When the Bridegroom speaks of tasting the Bride’s fruit, one can tell what he’s talking about… and the Bride sats something similar. Oral sex belongs within marriage.

  • No Susan you are incorrect. The sin of Onan referred to by Saint Augustine was that he “spilled his seed upon the ground” as an act of contraception. The Church has always been against contraception as the quote indicates.

    A nice article to read for people ignorant of the history of the Church prohibition in regard to contraception:


  • Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

    Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.

    Description of Appeal to Ridicule

    The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.” This line of “reasoning” has the following form:

    X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
    Therefore claim C is false.
    This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: “1+1=2! That’s the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!”

    It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim. One form of this line of reasoning is known as a “reductio ad absurdum” (“reducing to absurdity”). In this sort of argument, the idea is to show that a contradiction (a statement that must be false) or an absurd result follows from a claim. For example: “Bill claims that a member of a minority group cannot be a racist. However, this is absurd. Think about this: white males are a minority in the world. Given Bill’s claim, it would follow that no white males could be racists. Hence, the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations.”

    Since the claim that the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations is clearly absurd, it can be concluded that the claim that a member of a minority cannot be a racist is false.

    Examples of Appeal to Ridicule

    “Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable.”
    “Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!”
    “Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace!”


  • Also begging the question in that the statement that sperm and ovum aren’t people implies that killing someone is the only yardstick the Church uses in terms of sexual practices inside a marriage.

  • If Onan’s sin was so egregious, why isn’t it in the Levitical Holiness Code? It’s pretty exhaustive. Don’t sleep with a parent, don’t sleep with a sibling, etc. When the Levitical Code was given, it went into DETAIL about sexual do’s and don’ts. Onan gets only one appearance in the whole Bible-he isn’t that important. Not even St. Paul brought him up in his writings on marriage.

    Sperm and ovum aren’t human. If you say “life begins at conception”,BELIEVE it… instead of what Bill Maher said about Santorum recently.

    The Song of Songs praises oral sex within marriage-Clinton should’ve understood that.

    The Didache forbade artificial contraceptives as well as “poisons that induce abortion”,adultery, promiscuity, fornication. It didn’t describe sexual practices within marriage because it was NONE of its business.

    The Bible condemns adultery. A LOT. Jesus condemned divorce&remarriage. Where does the Bible give ANY prescriptions on sexual acts within marriage? Not many.

    “Thou shalt not commit adultery”-save sex for marriage.

    Got problems with that?

  • “If Onan’s sin was so egregious, why isn’t it in the Levitical Holiness Code?”

    Beats me. Of course there are a whole host of very serious sins not included in that Code. The Church is of course not limited by the strictures set forth in the Old Testament.

    “Onan gets only one appearance in the whole Bible-he isn’t that important.”

    Melchizedek gets only a brief appearance in the Old Testament, yet he is very important in the New. Traditionally Jewish rabbis opposed male contraception on the basis of Onan. That brief passage in the Old Testament has been very important in traditional views of contraception for both Jews and Christians until the day before yesterday in historical terms.

    “Sperm and ovum aren’t human.”

    No one has said that they are. That is not the point of the ban on contraception.

    “The Song of Songs praises oral sex within marriage”

    A debatable proposition. Sodomy has always been condemned by the Church. The Old Testament of course is not controlling over what the Church approves and what the Church condemns.

    “It didn’t describe sexual practices within marriage because it was NONE of its business.”
    Untrue. This from the Epistleof Barnabas ( circa 74 AD) ” Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29]. For he means, ‘Thou shall not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shall thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness’”

    The Church has legislated in this area since the time of the Crucifixion. You are very much mistaken.

  • Back in my college days, I once knew a guy who made a conclusion from the Robert DeNiro/Billy Crystal film “Analyze this.” DeNiro’s mobster says he has a mistress because he can’t imagine his wife kissing their children after practicing oral sex on him. Basically, rationalizing adultery.

    If one thinks oral sex is somehow wrong within marriage,it paves the way for mistresses&adultery. Police sexual practices unreasonably within marriage-and people will DEFINITELY commit adultery.

    It’s normal, natural&human for lovers to kiss each other, even down there (especially if down there) It’s natural for a wife to want to please her husband–no wonder the Epistle of Barnabas isn’t canonical. It’s also natural for a husband to go down&please his wife. If he’s scared for her lady parts, he’s got issues. It’s not done out of malice, but for love.

    I know a pastor (non-Catholic) who’d be appalled that you condemn oral intimacy within marriage… considering he backed Prop.8 in California AND managed to stop Planned Parenthood from opening up shop in his town. He’d be headdesking.

    That passage from Barnabas is condemning oral sex OUTSIDE of marriage. Besides, it would be a buzzkill for some men if their wives wouldn’t do it. It depends on the couple.As well as consent. If done for the wrong reasons, oral sex is wrong within marriage, but if it’s consensual&loving, who are we to condemn it?

    And weasels are cute creatures.

  • If you wish to argue for approval of what the Church has condemned throughout her history Susan, you are at the wrong blog.

  • I don’t know Donald, are you really prepared to simply cede to two millenia of the teachings of Popes, Bishops, and Church Doctors when you have the brilliant philosophic insight of “Analyze This” staring you right in the face?

  • From an article by Pete Vere JCL (once available on Cathoic Exchange, 7-10-07, but I can’t find it anymore. All I hard is hard copy. The article was called “Abortion and Contraception: Old Lies”

    [The book Eve’s Herbs] answered a question that had long troubled me; I had often wonderded why Holy Scripture appeared to say so little about the grave evils of abortion and contraception….Eve’s Herbs provided me with a startling realization: in ancient and medieval times, contraception and abortion were often considered a form of sorcery and witchcraft, rather than a form of medicine. Thus, Holy Scripture may never use the words abortion and contracpetion, but the Bible is not silent on the issue. It simply condemns these practices under a different name.”

  • Just thought of something else: when I was a kid, “gay” meant “happy” (or something like that). When I got to college, it meant “homosexual.” Now my kids use the word “gay” but it isn’t always being used to mean “a homosexual.” It means something more like “stupid.” Words change over time. Our understanding of things change over time, so that gives credance to Pete Vere’s thoughts on the matter.

  • DJ-
    Here you go! (Bless TFR and their habit of having copies of all sorts of things.)

  • DeNiro’s mobster says he has a mistress because he can’t imagine his wife kissing their children after practicing oral sex on him. Basically, rationalizing adultery.

    If one thinks oral sex is somehow wrong within marriage,it paves the way for mistresses&adultery.

    No… it was DeNiro’s character thinking that oral sex is something he’s got to have that paved the way to adultery.

    Oral sex good + mouth that’s performed oral sex on him touching his children= get mouth that won’t touch his children for oral sex.

    His initial assumption was wrong, so of course his conclusion was wrong. It would be shocking if his conclusion wasn’t wrong!

  • Pingback: Surprise! Sandra Fluke Being Run From White House | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: 2012: An Elijah on Mount Carmel Year | The American Catholic

Some In Mainstream Media In Full Anti-Catholic Meltdown Mode

Thursday, February 23, AD 2012

Some in the mainstream media are so angry about the existence of faithful Catholics that they can’t help themselves in becoming unhinged. I will reference the main points, but suffice to say that I could write a book on the subject. These latest quotes have caused me to scramble to get information to my editor so as to include at least some of this in my upcoming book; The Tide Continues To Turn Toward Catholicism, a follow up to my first book.  For starters it seems some in mainstream media are so ignorant of religion that even though 90% of Americans belong to some form of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which all believe that evil is manifested through a figure known as Satan, the media still finds it in their power to mock anyone who thinks evil exists. Some in the media seemed to take glee in pouncing on Catholic and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. He was called a kook, a nut, deranged, a mullah and an ayatollah, not by nameless posters on leftwing blogs but named writers in serious newspapers.

Leading the charge was that maven of militant secularism and angry people everywhere Maureen Dowd. Here are some of the spoiled nuggets from her dung heap. She calls Santorum a “mullah” who wants to take, “women back to the caves.” She goes on to deride anyone who actually believes in the teachings of the Catholicism that she once practiced.

Never one to miss a chance at apostasy and heresy; Chris Matthews entered the fray with both of his tingling legs.   Matthews claimed the reason the Catholic Church is growing is because homophobic converts are coming into the Church. It would appear that Mr. Matthews is off his meds. Has anyone ever informed mister leg tingler that groups like Courage; the Apostolate run by those who are same sex attracted, is a rapidly growing organization with men and women from all walks of life? They feel the comfort and assurance of living in God’s chaste plan for their lives. The New York Times of all papers did a favorable story on Eve Tushnet, a popular Catholic writer who has ties to the group. She is a successful woman and an Ivy League grad. Are these militant secularists going to claim that she is homophobic?

David Gergen and Donna Brazile (who is Catholic) didn’t take any pot shots at Catholics per see but did point out that liberal feminist organizations didn’t seem smitten with any of the GOP candidates, because they kept talking about religious liberty instead of the rights of birth control? David Gergen even said it with a straight face, which should really frost Rush Limbaugh who has dubbed the Washington establishmentarian; David Rodham Gergen. As much as they refer to the New York Times, they somehow missed Ross Douthat’s op-ed piece on the growth of Natural Family Planning and the number of women who help teach this non birth control view of family planning across the country and world.

The coup de grace of hate came from David Waldman who writes for a number of publications. This little nugget would make the Know Nothing Party of the 1840s smile. I would rather not give him the pleasure of repeating such delusional hatred; if you want to read his screed click here.   UPDATE In a Lisa Miller Washington Post article just out; Ms. Miller not only mocks Catholics but calls bishops “zealots” three times in her article.

If the Catholic Church is so irrelevant why would the likes of Dowd, Matthews and Waldman froth at the mouth at her beliefs? The simple answer is the Catholic Church is growing while their favorite liberal religious bodies are not only dying on the vine, but shriveling in a complete statistical freefall. Catholics and Evangelicals continue to increase in numbers which drive these mouthpieces of militant secularism nuts.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Some In Mainstream Media In Full Anti-Catholic Meltdown Mode

  • “22 Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. 23 Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets.” St. Luke

    Love them with Christian charity. Instruct them. Admonish them. Counsel them. For as long as they live, and we pray and set good examples through good works and prayer, they may come to a better “mind.”

    They are infallibly ignorant. We will annoy them!

  • I think this might be more ignorance of the culpable variety. Though their consciences are so scarred by their support for abortion and their reduction of Catholic social teaching to the perverse “social justice” variety that their culpability is likely lessened.

    Though culpable they remain. Their souls are at risk and we should weep for them.

    Fast and pray.

  • Iam one of the faithful but I also am becoming a Militant Catholic tired of the Bidens Pelosi,, Sebilius, Mathews,Kerry, and any other that publicly denounces the teachings of our faith.Heres a thought find another Religion one moe to your liking if you dont like the churches teachings LEAVE by the way why are they not EXCOMMUNICATED!

  • No, no, no, you’re not going to get me this time, Dave! I’ve fallen for the “link to a Maureen Dowd column” virus before. One click, and it fills your computer screen with gibberish.

  • Phillip,

    I think you are correct.

    They may be like the seeds that fell among thorn bushes. They hear the Gospel, but love of power, riches and/or the state chokes the Word. They do not bear fruit. Also, they may like be weeds the enemy sowed among wheat. (Matthew 13: 18 – 30; Mark 4: 13 – 20; Luke 8: 11 – 15)

    Their appropriate Bishops need to ex-communicate such persons out of charity to try to save their souls.

    I looked it up. Ex-communication is a reproach more than a punishment. The rite concludes with, “We exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church.” The priest: Closes the book. Rings a bell – symbolizes the toll of death. Extinguishes the candle – symbolizes the removal from the sight of God.

    OTOH, interdict is a punishment.

    They need prayers. Sadly, I have many more needful of prayers.

    Pinky, I stopped following links after having to replace a lap top and a flat-screen TV.

  • Ann Coulter’s latest column, entitled “What’s Their Problem With Romney?”, disparages the other candidates including the “crusading Catholic who can’t seem to move the conversation past contraception”.

  • “mainstream media” (sic)

    The DLEMM – Dominant Liberal Establishment Mass Media – does not reflect mainstream thought. Referring to the DLEMM as “mainstream” is inaccurate and a mistake. Liberals are not mainstream.

  • Here’ a bit from Nancy Pelosi talking about how the Church should not complain about the mandate as there has been no enforcement by the Church of the ban on contraception. There is a logic to her heresy. Let this awaken the bishops from their long slumber.


  • May I add my voice: I too am tired of Catholic bashing! I heard that some time ago in Canada there was a porn shop that neighbors objected to. Many of them put religious medals inside the cracks of the brick walls, and after some time the building burnt down by no apparent reason. My tought would be to send green scapulers and/or miraculous medals to all who hate the Catholic Faith with praying on our part to change their ways. I have done something simular to that in leaving such materials on job sites. May our Great Nation be filled with coversions to our Great Faith…..

  • Grandpa Dave, I like your ideas. Also Dave Hartline, great post! You are always so on target.

  • T. Shaw,
    “22 Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. 23 Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets.” St. Luke
    “…and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.” I believe Jesus bent down and wrote the name of the Pharisees trying to stone Magdalene. A person’s name is the BEST thing and the WORST thing anybody can say about a person. Congress tried to “BORK” Clarence Thomas. Obamacare. It may be that Obamacare is the best thing anybody can say about Obama’s presidency and that Obama’s constitutency has to go to hell because of the way Obama practices the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. It has occurred to me that the reason that the Media oppresses the Catholic Church with such vitriol, slander and lies, is simply because the administration, our culture, Obama and Pelosi and the like, have done and are doing nothing good to speak of. “infallible ignorance” is not an oxymoron, but the path of Obama’s adminstration. The picture of Dorian Gray is hanging in the White House, and the Emporer’s New Clothes are being advertized in the Media.

  • My friends prayer is most needed after reading other sites (and the comments left) who linked to this story. Those sites are hardly in our corner and though they mock us, if you read between the lines the anger is really vented at God Himself. Why you might ask? Sadly, arrogance, vanity, and pride makes some think they know better than God. We must never back down from them, but we must also never stop praying for them!

  • Dave, you are bang-on, as always.

    But this awkward fact remains — many Catholics and other Christians voted for the present administration, despite their then-obvious hatred of the faith, of this nation, and of civilized discourse. Why, why, why?

  • “many Catholics and other Christians voted for the present administration, despite their then-obvious hatred of the faith, of this nation, and of civilized discourse. Why, why, why?”

    Well, in 2008 the current administration-to-be’s “obvious” hatred of all things good may have been obvious to committed Catholics, evangelicals, and conservatives who frequent blogs like this and make it a point to judge all candidates by their record on moral issues. However, it was NOT so obvious to people outside of our traditional/conservative circles who had to rely upon the mainstream media for most of what they knew. We cannot assume that what is obvious to us is obvious to everyone else.

    That said, I think THIS time around the situation is much more obvious to everyone. When EVERY single U.S. bishop speaks out against the HHS mandate and a long procession of noted evangelical Protestants joins the effort, it’s pretty hard to ignore that. Plus there is an actual record of what Obama has done as an executive (rather than a legislator) to point to.

    I will concede that it MIGHT have been possible for a sincere (but not conservative) Catholic who wasn’t involved in the pro-life movement to persuade themselves in 2008 that voting for Obama (with McCain as the alternative) wouldn’t be so bad. I DO NOT think they have that excuse this time around.

  • Mack thanks for the kind words, and yes too many of the faithful voted and are still smitten with the Left’s agenda. It is as old as time itself, the belief that you can outsmart God and common sense and somehow everything will turn out just fine. It kinda reminds of two drunks at a party upset that anyone thinks they are drunk. By their strong and slurring protestations they think they can prove their sobriety. However, everyone knows the truth. Sadly, we have a lot of drunks at the party right now. However, the dawn is fast approaching and so is the hangover!

  • Elaine, just saw your post. Good point!

  • If something similar to the Q’ran burning fiasco aand concomitant murders of four US service members had occurred in 2004, it would have been 24/7 MSM shrieking “Bush must go!”

    In 2012, it’s crickets . . .

  • I see by the comments here that mutual masturbation is not considered a sin among the faithful.

  • You know I find this rather fascinating that we have so many non believers who read this site. It reminds me of all those converted atheists and agnostics who said there was a strange pull that kept them coming to religious sites. Unbeknownst to them, it was their conscience which they had tried to erase but God kept bringing up. I believe it was Mark Shea who said something to the effect that; if these atheists thought we believed in nothing why would they care? They don’t make fun of pagans worshipping Thor or Isis; yet they have to mock us with little juvenile comments that they learned in 8th grade. Very telling.

  • It is hard to spell atheist Dave without l-o-s-e-r. Most atheists are very angry people and troll atheists tend to be among the angriest of a very bitter group. A truly pathetic way to live.

Rush Limbaugh vs. The Classics

Monday, November 7, AD 2011

Kyle is filled with righteous indignation against Rush Limbaugh.

In case you had any lingering doubt that Rush Limbaugh makes a good charlatan’s living espousing half-baked pseudo-ideology slyly disguised as principled conservative philosophy, the winning radio host informs us that he doesn’t know what Classical Studies is, but he’s sure it’s a clever socialist plot. His faux-ignorant blather about the uselessness and insidiousness of studying Greek, Latin, Cicero, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Virgil, the Bible—you know, the bulwarks of Western Civilization that any conservative worth his salt should have an interest in conserving—reveals that he has no regard for the origin and history of our ideas, for the development of the intellect, or for conservatism.

The source of the indignation is a rant which Rush apparently delivered on the air a week ago. Said rant was in response to this “We Are the 99%” plea which was posted in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement:

I graduate college in 7 months with a “useless” degree in Classical Studies. I have worked very hard and am on track to graduate with highest Latin honors. I am in a Greek organization with many volunteer hours under my belt.
I am one of the lucky ones, but I am still the 99%.
Welcome to the American nightmare.

Rush responded to this plea, in part, as follows:

[reads the above quoted “We Are The 99%” piece]

Now, do you think somebody going to college, borrowing whatever it is in this case, $20,000 a year to get a degree in Classical Studies ought to be told by somebody at a school that it’s a worthless degree? … [W]hy is it that no one in her life told her that getting a degree in Classical Studies would not lead to employment? In fact, how many college students do you think believe that just getting a degree equals a high-paying job? Probably a lot of them. Not that you can blame ’em. That’s what they’ve been sold on. That’s what they’ve been told. Ergo, that’s what they expect. A college degree equals success, riches, whatever. Not work. This is key, now.

Continue reading...

37 Responses to Rush Limbaugh vs. The Classics

  • “many people enjoy listening to him spout off, feel a certain agreement, but don’t really take him all that seriously or expect him to present a fully coherent philosophy”

    You give his listeners too much credit. I’ve met quite a few people who take Rush very seriously.

    I do agree with Rush that colleges deceive prospective students and it’s gotta stop. It’s so reminiscent of the housing bubble. Lots of people taking on loans they won’t be able to repay with the government encouraging the practice.

  • I first read Thucydides in the seventh grade, and I have read all of the Greek and Roman historians since then, most of them several times. I believe they have helped me through life by giving me greater insight into human character. However, if I wanted to make a living through my study of these historians I would quickly be on food stamps, and my family along with me. There is a distinction between studying something because it is intellectually fascinating, and engaging in a course of study to enhance someone’s value in the marketplace. This is a lesson that students need to learn rapidly as undergraduates. As an undergrad I obtained a teaching degree in social studies so I would have something to fall back on if I decided that the law was not for me. Just because you can’t make a living on it doesn’t mean that a subject area is not worthy of study, but only a fool does not realize that at the end of the educational process he has to find a job. Socrates engaged in philosophy and was a stone mason after all, although I doubt if Xanthippe thought he struck the correct balance between the two. (No money again today? You wasted it yacking with those worthless scamps Alcibiades, Xenophon and Plato didn’t you ? Why I married you is beyond me. Mother was right, you are a worthless layabout!)

  • I suppose in a sense Socrates was very like a blogger…

    But yes. This idea that if you just get a college degree (in virtually any subject) you will automatically be given a “good job” without a whole lot of effort is so patently absurd I don’t understand how it got started. Heck, even the guys I knew who took eminently practical degrees like Computer Science had to search around a bit to find jobs.

    Is this the result of the “promote whether you pass or not” approach to education in this country, writ large?

  • I think you’re talking past each other, given that your solution is much what I seem to remember him proposing recently….

    I have no doubt that Rush knows that “classics” generally means “Greek and Roman.” (I’m just an ignorant kid whose highest, finalized, official schooling is high school, and I caught on to that…though my listening as an adult is MUCH later than yours, starting about 2006; I graduated in ’01 with the delightful luck of an English teacher who adored the classics enough to inflict them on his students.)

    What he’s commenting on is something I’ve observed, that folks think graduating with a degree in X means that they deserve a job in X. I see places around myself, and my folks, that are begging for folks to work– but no-one will, because it’s not their field. (example convicts picking apples at better than $20 an hour, yet the areas near them are still highly unemployed, though the convicts are no less skilled at apple picking than an English major.)

    FWIW, I don’t listen to Rush much. He repeats too much for my taste, and with the blogosphere I get news before he does most times. I also, to cut off accusations, don’t even have cable– let alone Fox News. His kabuki style annoyed me even when I did listen to him at least once a month, but I’m easily annoyed.

    Lest you take offense, I’ve been doing this for years– back in 2000, the recruiters thought that I was an anti-military nut because I pointed out that every restaurant I’d seen in our nearest community college town had a “help wanted” sign. I’m sorry, but I have no sense when it comes to delicately pointing out facts at variance with the POINT, even when I can see your point is “having a degree that makes your life better but not more profitable isn’t a bad thing.”

    Irony: I qualify the “as an adult” listener to Rush because my dad listened to him when I was little. My dad is a farmhand and ranch manager who has an AA with a focus on music appreciation. He proves your point… and, I think, is a living embodiment of Rush’s.

  • On a random note: I seem to recall Rush having Classics Professor Victor Davis Hanson on as a special guest ten years back. At the time, the only Hanson I’d read was Fields Without Dreams and The Western Way of War so I was surprised to have someone I’d only run into as an academic author show up on there. I believe it was right after Hanson had written a book about the need to teach the Great Books.

  • Well, the hard truth is that Rush is right, and I say that as someone with a Ph.D in the humanities. To paraphrase what a friend once told me, they ain’t opening political science factories anytime soon. But like Darwin, I wouldn’t have chosen any other path.

    College has become a racket – a big money racket. We are telling our kids that they all have to got to college, regardless of need or merit. Then, when they get there, they are offered no guidance whatsoever.

    And Dreher – ugh. He is the embodiment of the faux intellectual. He’s the guy who grabs a Kirk quote out of some book he once read and thinks he has made a profound point. It’s great to have Dreher lecturing us on the attributes of a real conservative. I guess I missed the part of “true conservatism” where we’re supposed to change our religious affiliation every time we get mildly annoyed by something. I guess that was in the part of Reflections on the Revolution in France that nobody reads.

  • Paul-
    you have a point; Mr. “if you were REALLY conservative, you’d ignore your points the way I’m ignoring them and do what I want” is a topic I missed. “Fostering appreciation of the classics”– let alone to the point where graduating with a degree in them is a good choice from a career perspective– is WAY down my list as a conservative, below “basic biological understanding of the start of life” and “respect of basic human rights, such as to life, property and association.”

  • That’s more than the cart before the horse, it’s putting the elegant coach-and-four ahead of making sure folks know how to identify a cart horse….

  • “I suppose in a sense Socrates was very like a blogger…”

    True, fortunately most of us have spouses with tongues far less sharp than Xanthippe’s!

    “On a random note: I seem to recall Rush having Classics Professor Victor Davis Hanson on as a special guest ten years back.”

    My favorite living historian as well as a writer of grace and elegance. Here is a link to his books, all of which I recommend:

    For those interested in understanding the sad state of the Classics in most of academia today, Hanson’s, along with his co-authors’, Who Killed Homer and Bonfire of the Humanities are indispensable.



  • “I guess that was in the part of Reflections on the Revolution in France that nobody reads.”


  • “Irony: I qualify the “as an adult” listener to Rush because my dad listened to him when I was little. My dad is a farmhand and ranch manager who has an AA with a focus on music appreciation. He proves your point… and, I think, is a living embodiment of Rush’s.”

    My wife and I have enjoyed Rush since he came on in 1988 Foxfier, and all 3 of our kids have been exposed to him all of their lives.

  • Victor Davis Hanson deals with a question from a charter member of Tin Foil Hats R Us:

  • I don’t listen to Rush very often these days, because his “shtick” gets on my nerves after about 5 or 10 minutes. However, I did read a couple of the books he wrote in the early 90s, “The Way Things Ought to Be” and “See, I Told You So” and I liked them both. The first book, especially, is an excellent introduction to his basic thought.

    One of Rush’s favorite shticks is “demonstrating absurdity by being absurd” so one cannot assume that he is always being totally serious. In reading his allegedly anti-classical education rant above I suspect he is being heavily sarcastic at various points.

    I don’t think Rush is saying that “the classics” — meaning, the seminal literary, historic and artistic works of Western civilization going back to ancient Greece and Rome — are not worth studying. If anything they are a great way to clear the mush out of young skulls full of mush. But it all depends on how you define classical studies, and how they are taught. What if they are taught by leftist professors who despise Dead White European Males and are determined to show how racist, sexist, bigoted, etc. they are? Then your education really would be worthless.

    Also, does one really have to spend thousands of dollars on a college education to study the classics? Why not just go to the library and read them for free, or pick up some cheap copies at a secondhand bookstore? Lots of homeschoolers do just that.

    What Rush is saying, in my judgment, is simply that one is not owed or guaranteed a job simply by virtue of completing a college degree, particularly a college degree in a subject that is not directly related to vocational or professional development. If you choose to study a non-vocational or liberal arts field, you do so at your own risk, and may have to be more creative in selling yourself to prospective employers. You can’t just sit back and expect job offers to fall in your lap.

  • Agreed Elaine, on all counts except that I still listen to Rush most days. I re-read See I Told You So in grad school for a paper and found it surprisingly insightful and with more depth than I had initially remembered. It was certainly as serious an investigation of conservative principles as something like, say, Crunchy Cons.

  • That is one of the few times I have ever seen Kyle Cupp be anything but twee and evasive in print. Do you think the moderator of Journeys in Alterity might have a personal interest there?

    And Dreher – ugh. He is the embodiment of the faux intellectual. He’s the guy who grabs a Kirk quote out of some book he once read and thinks he has made a profound point. It’s great to have Dreher lecturing us on the attributes of a real conservative. I guess I missed the part of “true conservatism” where we’re supposed to change our religious affiliation every time we get mildly annoyed by something.

    That is unfair to Dreher, who had a series of severe objections, not mild annoyances. He did not process what he was reading intelligently, but what he was reading was mighty disagreeable.

    Dreher is one of the better examples of Thomas Sowell’s observation that articulate people are not necessarily intelligent people. The American Conservative‘s readers and editors will receive a daily report of his emotional upsets, which will be the price they pay for what they really want. Dreher has a long history of affiliation, disaffiliation, and accusation. If you are a bunch of sectaries, reading an distrubed middle-aged man issue indictments against the other sects is a sort of catnip.

  • That is one of the few times I have ever seen Kyle Cupp be anything but twee and evasive in print. Do you think the moderator of Journeys in Alterity might have a personal interest there?

    Kyle was a year behind me at Steubenville, so I can assure you that his degree was in English Lit, not Classics. 🙂 Though in a sense, the same difficulties apply. It did strike me as a rather extreme outburst for Kyle, though, underlined by the fact that his summary of Limbaugh’s rant is about as hyperbolically inaccurate in describing what Limbaugh actually says as anything in Limbaugh’s rant itself is in relation to Classics.

    Dreher is one of the better examples of Thomas Sowell’s observation that articulate people are not necessarily intelligent people.

    Ain’t that the truth!

  • I rather think this comment is largely sadly correct regarding Classics in most of academia:

    “Well, you know, it’s obvious as I look into this Classical Studies business it is obvious at one time it was something of great esteme, something of tremendous import and value. I have to think like everything else in higher education today that it’s been dumbed down. In fact, about Victor Davis Hanson, he actually created the classics program at California State University Fresno in 1984, and he was a professor there until recently. He created it because of the deterioration in the whole field because of how it’s lost whatever specialness that it once had. But I think there’s all kinds of theories to explain what’s going on in higher education. For example, it’s not new that college graduates don’t know anything. That’s not really that new.

    Now, I think it is relatively new, two generations, that worthless degrees are being constructed and taught and awarded. But generally what’s happened is that American employers have taken these ill-educated graduates and they’ve turned ’em into productive employees after a lot of investment. But in this economy, in the Obama economy, employers don’t have the money, they don’t have the wherewithal, and they don’t have the confidence or the money or the time or the patience to go out and hire uneducated people and turn ’em into something. Because they can’t get a handle on what faces them next year with Obamacare, what other regulations might be awaiting them.

    So this woman, or person, whoever it is, I’m assuming it’s a woman that wrote this note, Occupy Wall Street, lamenting the fact she’s gonna have zero job opportunities with her Classical Studies degree, the villain is Obama. There will be a time where the economy will be able to absorb these people again, but it’s down the road a bit. ‘Cause after you get a degree in Classical Studies, what do you need? You need Reality Studies. And Reality Studies is what you get when you get out of college and you start going to work and you learn what you don’t know. And if you don’t have the ability to admit that you don’t know anything, then Reality Studies is gonna be a cold slap upside the head, and it isn’t gonna be pleasant.”


  • Indeed. (Confession: I hadn’t read past the first commercial break.)

    Though I will say, in defense of my old field, that Classics has held up far better than other fields (history, literature, etc.) against the silliness which has come to pervade the Humanities. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that it’s necessarily grounded in actually learning Greek and Latin and actually reading ancient texts. People sometimes try to get into all sorts of trendy analysis after that, but the fact that everything has to start with the language and the texts is a big help in keeping it sober and rigorous.

  • Well said Elaine. Apparently Kyle missed the class on sarcasm during his classical studies period. Rush was indeed “demonstrating absurdity by being absurd”. Just because you have a degree does not entitle you to a handout. You have only secured a piece of paper (degree). Get out there and work hard to accomplish whatever particular goals you set for yourself. if you wish to obtain material things on this earth then you must do so yourself and not depend upon the government or anyone else to hand you anything. If you have no interest in material things then fine. Be at peace with that. But, don’t run to the feeding trough looking for a free ride during your time on this earth. Don’t choose to be a sloth and expect to be rewarded for it. Feel free to choose whatever degree you wish but be prepared for the realities of the job market. Free enterprise and capitalism will dictate the the current job market- as they should.

  • THis was painful. First First things had comments on a post on tenure in which people were bashing medieval studies, and now classics (classics was my undergrad degree, medieval my grad). People need to be told that most of these humanities degrees directly translate into jobs in their own areas (ie. a classics job) only in academia and they require graduate degrees. I would tell students to minor/double major in classics if they are doing it mainly for self improvement/interest.

  • I studied the Classics, having translated Cicero’s Orations Against Cataline and Virgil’s Aenid in Latin class long ago. I’ve read Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations, and a few other ancient writings as well. Yes, I did read some Catullus and Horace, but I kept those poems even in their Latin well away from my mother, God bless her! I even studied Koine Greek (most of which I have since forgotten – the old “don’t use it, then lose it” maxim comes to mind), and had translated St. John’s Gospel. But I never expected to directly make money off any of these things. My Mom and Dad taught me that I had to do good old fashion work. They encouraged my classical studies (except for Horace and Catullus) so that I could think like a man. And they encouraged my entry in the nuclear submarine service so that I could behave like a man. Both are essential to eventually getting a decent job that pays well, and in being a useful and responsible citizen (which I hope I qualify as). I now have to return to that job – “nukes ‘R us” – and use the grammatical and editorial skills I learned pouring over some esoteric text that Aurelius or Cicero wrote to write nuclear procedures that make sense, are simple, and can be followed by the most hopeless of engineers for whom English grammar and writing style was an art in college reserved solely for the artsy-fartsy types. 😉

    PS, I never did go to college. Instead, I went to Naval Nuclear Power School which I am told is much worse – no keg parties, just lots and lots of studying, and then months at a time on a submarine beneath the waves. And I kept up with some of my Classical studies which enabled me to make sense of what happens when I attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form, and to read the Nova Vulgata.

  • From 1962, The Changing of the Guard episode from the Twilight Zone which reminds us of two things:

    1. Sometimes the most impractical parts of our education can be very important for guiding us along in life.

    2. Teaching, when well done, can be a very noble profession indeed.

  • I figured I’d get a response from you, Darwin.

    I can offer no defense of students who foolishly expect that getting a degree in X will mean getting a job in X (or a job, period), and if that was all El Rushbo was saying, I’d have no complaint. Instead, the voice of the EIB network invented this fantasy world in which the Classics are part of a clever plot to make future generations dependent on a socialist state. I’m not so optimistic to believe his avid followers won’t take this fiction for reality.

    I agree with you that Classics and other humanities are worth studying for their own sake, regardless of the field one goes into, but, commercialist though I may be, I also agree with Rod Dreher that our society would be improved if social interest in the Classics were such that more Classics majors could pursue work studying and fostering appreciation for the classics. Really, this seems a prerequisite for the influence of the classics you’d like to see upon people in a variety of fields. You want sales managers and advertising writers and loan officers and customer service representatives to know a thing or two about Homer and Hesiod? You need a lot of scholars who understand the Classics and can teach them effectively.

  • I’d have no complaint. Instead, the voice of the EIB network invented this fantasy world in which the Classics are part of a clever plot to make future generations dependent on a socialist state. I’m not so optimistic to believe his avid followers won’t take this fiction for reality.

    For the sake of precision, what he said in the quoted passages which would indicate he held to this ‘fantasy’ was as follows:

    “Socialism as a remedy. They demand that everybody else take care of them — and, my friends, this is not an accident.”

    It is not immediately clear from this sentence what he considers whose intentions and plans to be. (In any case, if you are on the air for – what? – fifteen hours a week, you are bound to make ill-considered remarks from time to time).

  • I figured I’d get a response from you, Darwin.

    By all the gods, have I become so predictable?

    Instead, the voice of the EIB network invented this fantasy world in which the Classics are part of a clever plot to make future generations dependent on a socialist state. I’m not so optimistic to believe his avid followers won’t take this fiction for reality.

    I’m not at all clear that’s what he was saying — especially now that I’ve read on past the first commercial break. It sounds to me more like a general claim that encouraging people to have unmeetable expectations out of life in regards to job prospects will encourage people to turn to the state to solve their problems. This is, perhaps, a bit conspiracy minded, but given that some have been suggesting in connect with the OWS movement that if people can’t be guaranteed a good job when they graduate college than then “the system” clearly needs to be changed in order to do so, I’m not sure it’s entirely fantastic.

    I also agree with Rod Dreher that our society would be improved if social interest in the Classics were such that more Classics majors could pursue work studying and fostering appreciation for the classics. Really, this seems a prerequisite for the influence of the classics you’d like to see upon people in a variety of fields. You want sales managers and advertising writers and loan officers and customer service representatives to know a thing or two about Homer and Hesiod? You need a lot of scholars who understand the Classics and can teach them effectively.

    I suppose. Perhaps much of it is that I’m not generally sanguine about the prospects of getting people excited about a topic simply by telling them, “You should be excited about this! That would allow people to make a living writing books for you or giving lectures to you!”

    In my own little way, I try to do my part by talking about and writing about Classical culture with those I know. I’m not really sure what, beyond that, Dreher expects people to do. Though Limbaugh does get in a pitch further down for Victor David Hanson’s writing, someone who comes fairly close to being a Classicist crossing over into general popular writing. (Part of the problem, to my mind, with Dreher’s expecation is that greater interest in the Classics might translate to a minutely increased number of figures such as Hanson rather than a vast number of well employed young Classicists.)

  • Reading through these comments, I would wager that many of the OWS fleabaggers and their supporters among the liberal elites would not know Cicero from Plato, must less be able to understand what Cicero was driving at in De Officiis or Paradoxa Stoicorum, or what Plato was driving at in The Republic or The Statesman. And if they did understand, then they wouldn’t agree in most cases. I suppose the same is true of most conservatives. Alas, we have been done educated into imbecility.

  • The only memorable piece of writing that I can recall from Rod Dreher was the time he said in the comments at Amy Welborn’s former blog that he’d like to kick the chancellor of the Diocese of Rockford, IL in the privates.

    Yeah, real high-brow stuff.

  • “What am I going to do with my degree in philosophy? Open a shop and sell concepts?” asked the young lady. The study of the [Greek and Latin] must be done for the intellectual pleasure and value derived from them. In England decades ago, the study was required to get a job in the Foreign Office. They were thought to develope one’s thinking ability; and also one’s writing style, so important for short and coherent dispatches. [Consider Veni, vidi, vici].
    A grevious flaw in the study of the Classics is that these studies have pushed aside the study of Mediaeval Latin and Greek, which among other things is much simpler and clearer than the vagaries of Ciceronian oratory. That Latin was spoken and written for far longer than “classical” Latin. Much fine poetry, much great thought, much scientific theory was written in Latin down to the 18th Century, Samuel Johnson on his visit to Paris conversed in Latin with several French scholars. The Renaissance was Latin speaking phenomenon.

  • Pingback: TUESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Frankly common sense simply sees that Rush was dealing with the situation of getting jobs….where the jobs are in greater abundance. It’s a discussion of practicality and expense and frankly motivation, using his own experience. You can get a background in the classics without an expensive college formation in such subjects that don’t have a lot of slots out there for their purity alone. My cousin did classic studies as an aside to his medical studies just for personal interest. So I don’t see a reason for such consternation other than one might feel personally upset because he spent time and trouble to follow his own personal interest and wishes to defend it from criticism. But I wouldn’t term practical criticism as “blather” or a need for a personal attack. I would think the wisdom of the “classical” teachings would itself advise against such reponses!

    Yes, it certainly is “possible” to graduate with such subjects being the principal study and “get a job”, but it is also wise to get the practical picture before adding to one’s debt for a happier future. I have to wonder even about certain Catholic long time bloggers, their chosen “fields” for life work, who wish to be considered knowledgeable via “opinions” on a number of subjects, but who consequently must beg for funds to support their families from readers who themselves may be working 2 or 3 jobs, not esp. to their liking, in order to first take care of their main responsibility as fathers and husbands!!

  • Elaine beat me to the punch by a long way.

    If I had been more creative (which is kind of ironic when you’re a performing artist), I probably could have gotten to this point without a college degree. Sure, audition committees probably feel more comfortable with somebody who has an institution’s seal of approval, but is it strictly necessary? Not always. Are there ways around it? Yes, for the determined individual, there are. If you can deliver, consistently, reliably, and at the highest level, you will be hired regardless of any letters by your name. The main advantage of college for me was that it put me in close proximity with a lot of peers in my field for an extended time. The vast majority of the work I’ve gotten has been through those relationships and connections. It was more convenient to have it all packaged like that — and naturally, more expensive.

  • rosie, leaving aside particular examples in the blogosphere or otherwise, you introduce a fair point. There is a reason why we call it “work.” Most adults work dutifully in jobs they do not especially like for one reason — the money. People need to support their families and try to accumulate a little security in the process if possible. Some people instead opt for occupations that they find fulfilling, even if less remunerative. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is wrong for them to complain or expect others to provide for them. Very few people truly marry their vocation with their avocation, and those that can do so successfully are truly blessed. Many of these “occupiers” seem to think they are entitled to do this, and that is naive and selfish. Of course, their enablers have been parents and other boomers who keeping repeating that silly mantra “find your passion.” The idea that one is entitled to make a living by doing whatever one finds interesting and fulfilling is obnoxious. Tell that to a “pricing strategist” at Pepsi.

  • Now now Mike! There might be a couple of us around here who happen to think being a pricing strategist is much like marrying a vocation with an avocation (even at Pepsi!). 🙂 Granted, we may be odd birds, but (I think I speak for both of us here) there was no prior interest in the field and the work was taken as a means to food on the table, but have since developed a significant enough interest to call it a passion.

  • By his own admission, Rush does his thing for the money. It seems that he also believes his unwashed brand of free-market, limited-government opinions are the best overall for the majority of the people.

    The kicker: the liberals, e.g., Obama-worshiping geniuses that can’t find work like the ones at #OccupyFAIL, give him so much to talk about.

    Limbaugh’s not the only person raising the “higher education bubble” issue. See Instapundit’s periodic entries.

    Here is one of my “take-aways” from reading the Classics: In stressful situation, I often ask myself, “What would Odysseus do?” In other words, think about why he was the only one to get home to Ithaca. Although, I think that killing all the suitors was, ahem, “overkill.”

  • I sometimes listen to Rush and I enjoy his program. I accidentally tuned in back in the early 90’s and found that his views are sometimes my views. I especially loved his early satire. Remember the timber updates. He has a good work ethic, makes tons of money and is annoying at times. Just turn it off if it sends you over the edge. One of my daughters graduated with a major in political science and a minor in history. She took the law exams, passed and said she would never want to be a lawyer. I said get a job, any job. Find work because you have to support yourself. She started in a small communications business, applied and finished her masters degree at a local university and through the years has worked herself into a very good position with a fortune 500 company in the field of energy. College can be a boondoggle. Students entering should always think about how they can apply their studies to the real world.

  • I don’t get the animus against Rod Dreher. Granted, he’s a personal friend of mine, but I generally find that he has more interesting things to say on any given day than just about any other blogger anywhere.

  • I don’t get the animus against Rod Dreher. Granted, he’s a personal friend of mine, but I generally find that he has more interesting things to say on any given day than just about any other blogger anywhere.

    Well, he is not a personal friend of mine, so I just have to react to what he writes. Some of those who contribute here locked horns with him for years at Open Book. Others just observed his shtick.

    1. It is exceedingly imprudent to remark without qualification on what you read in the newspapers about criminal prosecutions or civil disputes. It tends to provoke even more irritation when you a putatively a journalist and supposed to evaluate things with a skeptical ear, no?

    2. What your gut tells you does not matter much. Emotional freight (yours or someone else’s) is not probative.

    3. If you have a habit of framing something in terms of the embarrassment or upset it causes you, you tend to alienate people.


    4. More particularly, the most salient problem associated with the abuse crisis in the Catholic Church was as follows: uncorroborated accusations delivered 15 years after the fact are very difficult to evaluate in a satisfying way. That was not the only vector operating in diocesan chanceries, but it was perhaps the most powerful one. Also, one’s sense of plausibility does change given experience. A bishop who has in his files four or five accusations accumulated against priests in the previous 40 years (the mode in 1978) will likely listen with a different kind of ear than a bishop who has received four or five accusations in the previous 18 months (the mode 10 years later). In addition, a mass of accusations against priests is indicative of a general problem. It is not very helpful in evaluating specific cases, any more than crime statistics help you dispose of specific indictments.

    I am not sure Leon Podles ever acknowledged any of the foregoing. Rod Dreher did once in regard to a priest he knew personally. Having faced the issue once, he then stopped facing it, and returned to being irked, bored, and impatient with anyone who raised the matter. Interfered with his narrative.

    5. The vicissitudes of life, public and private, commonly cause people who are not completely pig-headed to make incremental adjustments to their worldview. Some people make radical adjustments, though usually not in middle-age. This sort of experience should temper your vehemence.

    6. With regard to the above, and more generally, if your default mode is one of accusation, you tend to alienate people.

    7. Also with regard to the above, and more generally, if your priority seems to be one of appearance (being seen with x, y, or z), it tends to be alienating. Lack of a certain bravery under fire tends to be alienating as well.

    8. A great many of us are hypocrites in large matters and small, including yours truly. When an obnoxious advocate of child safety and the simple life mentions off-hand that all the windows in his house are painted shut and he has the a/c running 24/7, one is amused (if one was previously alienated; struck dumb otherwise).

    9. Whittaker Chambers did not claim to have invented his own dispensation in political thought, crunch crunch.

Klavan v. The Right Wing Devils

Friday, October 7, AD 2011


Right you are Klavan on the Culture!  Conservative talk show personalities do owe a great debt to one group which has contributed more to their success that any other group:  Liberals.   Many liberals, through their over the top hatred of dissenting views, helped give vast publicity to the figures they hated and thus helped launch their careers and continue to give them endless publicity.  So a round of applause for intolerant liberals!

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Klavan v. The Right Wing Devils

  • Did ESPN fire Hank Williams, Jr. for “comparing” Hitler with Obama?

    Hitler’s insanity led to the righteous destruction of Germany. Give him four more years. Obama hasn’t wrecked America, yet.

  • @T Shaw: Williams didn’t actually compare Hitler & Obama, he likened the situation of Boehner golfing with Obama to Hitler golfing with Israel’s PM Netanyahu because both pairs are polar opposites & have no business being friendly to each other.

    @Don: I’ve always loved Klavan videos that you post. He’s very on-the-point with a great personality.

  • Kyle, Klavan’s commentaries are some of the funniest and most insightful videos I have ever seen. I have never watched any of his videos without laughing out loud and coming away with something to think about.

  • That would be impossible.

    Hitler killed himself over 65 years ago.

    Plus, I don’t believe Hitler played golf.

    It seems ESPN doesn’t like country music . . .

  • Most elaborate Rick-roll ever. *grin*

    T. Shaw- my folks would tell you that Bocephus doesn’t generally do country music unless he’s covering his dad’s songs….

    Gotta love Klavan– if you make someone laugh, it makes it safe for them to consider what you’ve said.

  • Okay but you gotta admit Beck really is insane.

  • I have always thought RR that Beck is fairly loosely wired.

  • Did ESPN fire Hank Williams, Jr. for “comparing” Hitler with Obama?

    -T. Shaw

    That’s the story ESPN is telling. I’m amused that in their haste to accuse Hank Williams, Jr. of crimethink, the faux-outraged reflexively linked his mention of Hitler to Obama rather than Boehner. That gave away a lot about what America’s soft-core left really thinks of Obama.

  • I just discovered this site…humor, intelligence, common sense, traditional values and God all in one place. I feel like Will Smith in “I Am Legend”. I’m not alone! I may even consider converting to Catholisism (you’re not the guys that require c right?) I’m a little old for that. The Hank Jr. episode is just the most recent example of the collective farce that passes he Free Press these days…if I can’t get get a laugh out of it…depression sets in…so thank you Mr. Klaven, Et al. for your contributions to my mental health.

Rank and File Conservatives & The Conservative Intelligentsia United In Outrage Over Mosque Near Ground Zero, Not So With Same-Sex Marriage

Sunday, August 15, AD 2010

The proposed mosque set to be built near Ground Zero, site of the September 11, 2001 attacks has brought a sweeping condemnation from both rank and file conservatives and the Conservative Intelligentsia. Now that President Barack Obama has weighed in the matter, seemingly supporting the effort, one can only imagine how this will be used in the fall elections. However, a rift has appeared to have been opened concerning the views of the rank and file conservatives and the Conservative Intelligentsia following the ruling of Judge Vaughn Walker over same-sex marriage. Many of the conservative intelligentsia, along with the establishment wing of the Republican Party has either been silent or voiced the view that the wished the whole gay marriage issue would simply go away. This has led to bewilderment from some conservative voices.

The best Catholic tie in with the efforts to build a mosque on Ground Zero came from the famed conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, who is Jewish. In his opposition to the mosque being built near Ground Zero, he correctly pointed out that Pope John Paul II ordered Carmelite nuns, who were living right next to Auschwitz, to move closer to a nearby town, since the site had become a rallying point for Jewish identity. Krauthammer correctly pointed out that Christians had been murdered there too and the nuns were doing the heroic deed of praying for the souls of those who were viciously murdered. However, Krauthammer pointed out that the late Polish pontiff felt that it created the wrong perception.

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Rank and File Conservatives & The Conservative Intelligentsia United In Outrage Over Mosque Near Ground Zero, Not So With Same-Sex Marriage

  • Which members of the conservative intelligentsia who aren’t also rank and file Republicans, have expressed opposition to the mosque?

  • There are plenty of natural law and non-religious arguments against homosexuality. It is not a natural co-equal with heterosexuality. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Men and woman are complementary, not only physically, but emotionally and psychologically.

    Homosexuals have significantly higher levels of: mental health problems, psychological disorders such as suicide and depression, sexual addiction and coercion, promiscuity, STDs, violence, and addictions of all kinds including alcoholism and drug abuse.

    Almost every society, primitive and complex, has had laws and taboos against homosexuality. This isn’t just a Christian thing. There will always be a visceral reaction to homosexuality because it goes to the very heart of the survival of our species.

    Where homosexuality occurs in the animal world, it is primarily a temporary condition, and when the opportunity presents itself, animals will copulate heterosexually.

    Two-parent heterosexual families, despite the exceptions, are proven over history, across cultures, as the better way for healthy child development. Healthy children produce healthy societies.

    It’s time, in my opinion, for a Constitutional amendment that establishes once and for all that marriage is between one man and one woman. Then we can put this issue to bed.

  • I was rather hoping you would offer some analysis as to WHY so many self-described conservatives are backing away from the defense of traditional marriage. I suppose it is because Americans of all stripes have internalized the notion that it is “mean” to express “intolerance” toward homosexuality. Genuine intolerance, however, including intolerance toward Catholics, remains quite socially acceptable.

  • discarding Western Civilization’s definition of marriage (2,000+ years) is simply a non starter.

    As pointed out above, it’s not just Western Civ’s definition, it has been humanity’s definition since recorded history, and likely pre-dates that as well. try more like 5,000+ years.

  • From what I can tell, those members of the conservative “intelligencia” who aren’t members of Fox & Friends or proprieters of talk radio shows have mostly remained in favor of religious freedom — as they should.

  • Try on this one, Bunky:

    “Rank and file liberal catholics and the liberal catholic intelligentsia united in outrage over tax cuts for the rich, not so with abortion.”

  • I was rather hoping you would offer some analysis as to WHY so many self-described conservatives are backing away from the defense of traditional marriage.

    I suspect you usually could not do this without making evaluations of their personal disposition and conduct, as in noting that some folk appear other-directed by default (Ross Douthat, Rod Dreher) or have been married four times (Theodore Olson), or make use of the self-description ‘conservative’ to obfuscate (Conor Friedersdorf).

    Someone on the payroll of The American Conservative or the Rockford Institute can likely also supply a dismissive commentary to the effect that those resisting this burlesque have neglected some deeper cultural deficiency which these resisters are too shallow to detect and about which we can do nothing in any case.

  • “Rank and file liberal catholics and the liberal catholic intelligentsia united in outrage over tax cuts for the rich, not so with abortion.”

    Fits alright.

  • Homosexuals have significantly higher levels of: mental health problems, psychological disorders such as suicide and depression, sexual addiction and coercion, promiscuity, STDs, violence, and addictions of all kinds including alcoholism and drug abuse.

    Same can be said of blacks. I don’t find that a convincing argument. If you’re going to oppose gay marriage on secular grounds, I think you have to rest on the procreation argument.

  • I’d postulate that people don’t feel as threatened by gay marriage as they are by Islam. Homosexuals never killed 3000 people in my backyard.

  • Tide turning towards Catholicism? Just today I read a credible report saying that in the last 10+ Catholic marriages have decreased. One point of view is that the religion is too strict and another is that it is not needed with modern thinking. I just had a conversation with a liberal who said life is a pendulum goes from one extreme to the other finding it’s way in the middle. I do not believe this that societies do go by the wayside, that they undo themselves, with no virtue to survive pop trends.

  • I don’t find that a convincing argument. If you’re going to oppose gay marriage on secular grounds, I think you have to rest on the procreation argument.

    Why don’t you try making the case FOR it? Start with an explanation of why male friendships which do not incorporate sodomy as part of their daily practice should received less recognition than those which do.

  • Art Deco, I don’t know why you want me to make the case for it but you asked so I’ll try.

    The closer the relationship, the greater the rights and responsibilities between them are. If we want to legally protect expectation interests, we will want to recognize intimately committed couples in ways that we don’t recognize mere friendships. We may also want to legally recognize friendships but that’s not at issue here.

  • RR,

    We have an association that is sterile and undertaken in a social matrix where sexual activity is treated as fun-n-games. Why should this be honored? Why is it deemed ‘closer’ than the fraternity that bound my father to the man who was his dearest friend for 48 of his 51 years? What are ‘expectation interests’? Why do you want to protect them?

    My question was rhetorical. The gay lobby wants this as a gesture of deference. The only reason to give it to them is that they will be put out by refusal. Lots of people do not get their way, and public policy is enough of a zero sum game that that is inevitable. For some, it is incorporated into their amour-propre to regard some clamoring constituencies as composed of those who are So Very Special. Then there’s the rest of thus, who are not so well represented in the appellate judiciary.

  • AD,

    We have an association that is sterile and undertaken in a social matrix where sexual activity is treated as fun-n-games. Why should this be honored?

    It shouldn’t.

    Why is it deemed ‘closer’ than the fraternity that bound my father to the man who was his dearest friend for 48 of his 51 years? What are ‘expectation interests’? Why do you want to protect them?

    I assume your father and his friend didn’t rely on each other for financial support. When people form an association with the mutual expectation that they take on certain duties, it would be unjust to allow one party to escape their duties at the expense of the other(s). It’s why we enforce contracts. If your father and his friend did have such an arrangement, it should be enforced.

  • I’d postulate that people don’t feel as threatened by gay marriage as they are by Islam. Homosexuals never killed 3000 people in my backyard.

    Neither have illegal immigrants, but that hasn’t stopped an upsurge in hostility and resentment towards them as a group.

  • Pope John Paul II ordered Carmelite nuns, who were living right next to Auschwitz, to move closer to a nearby town, since the site had become a rallying point for Jewish identity. Krauthammer correctly pointed out that Christians had been murdered there too and the nuns were doing the heroic deed of praying for the souls of those who were viciously murdered. However, Krauthammer pointed out that the late Polish pontiff felt that it created the wrong perception.

    Nobody would object if those wanting to building the mosque volunteered to build it elsewhere. But who is the more honorable person? The Jew who welcomed the Carmelites or the Jew who told them to go somewhere else?

  • Neither have illegal immigrants, but that hasn’t stopped an upsurge in hostility and resentment towards them as a group.

    They ignored the law and act to frustrate lawfully constituted immigration policy. Can we have a wee bit o’ antagonism, pretty please?

  • I assume your father and his friend didn’t rely on each other for financial support.

    I cannot say if they borrowed money from each other or not. Ordinarily, working aged men are expected to be self-supporting if not disabled.

    When people form an association with the mutual expectation that they take on certain duties,

    Human relations are not commercial transactions and the law does not ordinarily enforce amorphous and unwritten ‘expectations’ that someone else is going to pay your rent.

    Right now, RR, I am pricing insurance policies. I was offered (unbidden) discount rates by the agent if I was in some sort of ‘committed relationship’ with some other dude. Uh, no, nothing like that Chez Deco, ever. I inquired about purchases for my sister. No discount offers there.

    Maybe sis and I can manufacture an ‘expectations interest’ and get you and Judge Walker to work on our problem.

  • And if it is written?

    Are you opposed to insurance discounts for spouses or for discounts for siblings?

  • Pingback: If Liberals Lose Big In This Fall’s Election, The Professiona Left Will Mock The Religious Faithful « The American Catholic
  • This article has a lot of interesting points. However, it rambles all over the place. The essay would have been easier to understand if it was broken up into three mini essays.

    There’s no intrinsic connection between the Cordoba Mosque, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage. Why lament that some conservatives have an opinion on one topic but not the other? You might (rightfully) argue that the establishment of a mosque near Ground Zero does not carry even a tenth of the socio-moral import of same sex marriage. But the logical independence of the two questions renders party lockstep on the two issues irrelevant. Let the GOP/right/conservative rank and file make up their own minds about the relationship between these two variables.

    Gratuitous aside: I know that you and other faithful/orthodox Catholic bloggers must boost reparative therapy. To not do so would negatively impact one’s orthodox Catholic street cred. Still, one can be a faithful Catholic, live morally, and not support COURAGE. Indeed, I found the meetings emotionally intrusive and psychologically manipulative. I wish that the Catholic orthodox/conservative/right would think twice before lavishing praise on an organization and therapeutic model that at the very least has emotionally troubled some participants. Sing your praises only after attending a meeting or two.

  • Sorta Catholic, the beauty of writing an article for a blog or newspaper column is that you have the freedom to write it as you see fit. Perhaps, some would like shorter columns, while others may favor longer columns, the choice is up to the writer.

    As for Courage, the group’s spiritual mentor is Father Benedict Groeschel, his credentials are certainly good enough for me. Perhaps, the meeting you attended was not run properly. I can only tell you that the group is trying to impart the Church’s teachings in a world that has become enamored with self, and not with faith.

    As for orthodox-minded street cred, we aren’t trying to impress anyone only help spread the message of Christ through His Church. We have divergent opinions on a variety of topics, but yet we fall under the same umbrella of supporting the Church’s teachings. The longer you submit to the will of God, the more you realize the wisdom of the 2,000 year old Catholic Church. It really does make you a more content indiviudal, free from the whims of the modern world. Take care!

  • It is a shame that the likes of Beck, Coulter and Limbaugh would let their libertarian views get the best of them when it comes to SSM. Divorcing that from their preaching for conservative values is not the charitable thing to do when the eternal salvation of those who engage in homosexual acts is at stake. Frankly, by doing so, they are committing the grievous sin of omission. A priest in Texas recently made that point clear when he said that Catholics have a moral duty to oppose abortion and SSM.

  • By the way, one of my favorite journalists, WorldNetDaily’s founder Joseph Farah, hits the nail on the head of this issue in offering his take on why some conservatives are “capitulating” to the gay agenda pushers: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=192761

  • Hi Dave,

    A person that bases his or her judgement of an organization on the perceived reputation of a founder/leader/mentor in that organization commits the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority”. Now, Fr. Groschel is an upstanding authority. I respect him as a religious leader even if I do not agree with many of his points. Even so, the absolute metric for any organization is its ideology/methodology. Perhaps you’ve provided a rigorous defense of reparative therapy elsewhere on your website. If so, point me there. Otherwise, an appeal to authority without prior analysis of an institution’s ideology or methodology is rather insubstantial.

    Appeals to authority or subjective statements such as “X is trying to impart the Church’s teachings […]” sometimes hide insufficient research. Also, “orthodoxy” (i.e. strict adherence to a religion’s dogma/doctrine) does not guarantee the success or failure of a particular therapy.

  • Hi SortaCatholic, I hope your day is going well. I must say that I find these sorts of exchanges very interesting. I don’t believe my “Appeal to Authority,” is some sort of man made or earthly authority. You see I have worked for the Church in a number of capacities. I have seen the good, bad and the ugly. There is some great people who work for the Church and some really inept ones. I have always felt with all of these inept folks, the Church would have to be who she says she is to have survived 2,000 years!

    Perhaps someone at Courage might come across this and answer some of your questions. I do know that God does help us and prayer does work, but rarely in the sort of miraculous way in which we would like it to happen. God sorts and sifts us. We all have our own sets of problems, blessings, gifts, talents and struggles. I have always found Christ’s words of seek and you shall find, knock and you will be heard to be very true (Matthew 7:7-11.) In addition, I have always found this Scripture reading from Hebrews about God showing us the way through trial and struggle very revealing in my own life (Hebrews 12:5-12.) Take care!

CNN and HuffPo Feeling Heat Over False Racist Quotes to Rush Limbaugh

Friday, October 16, AD 2009

[Updates at the bottom of this post as of 4:21pm CDT 10-16-2009 AD]

This week there has been a whirlwind of character assassination done by the mainstream media to conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh’s bid to purchase the St. Louis Rams (American) football team of the National Football League (NFL).   They have been accusing Mr. Limbaugh of saying several racist quotes without confirming their existence.  All the alleged racist quotes have been debunked by Snopes earlier this week as well as being denied by Mr. Limbaugh.  Additionally many in the mainstream media have been unable to find any evidence of these allegations.

But today there has been a sudden realization of regret when the heat turned up on their yellow journalism.  Regret that some elements of the mainstream media were involved in libel and slander.

The most prominent of the yellow journalists are liberal news anchors Anderson Cooper and Rick Sanchez of the left-of-center CNN, sports columnist Bryan Burwell of the liberal St. Louis Dispatch, and finally the liberal Huffington Post (HuffPo) blog.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to CNN and HuffPo Feeling Heat Over False Racist Quotes to Rush Limbaugh

  • If I were a St. Louis Rams fan, I would not want an owner who couldn’t tell how good a quarterback Donovan McNabb was (at least before his injuries).

  • I would not want an owner who couldn’t tell how good a quarterback Donovan McNabb was

    Sigh. You know, Rush never actually said Donovan McNabb wasn’t a good quarterback. In fact he has repeatedly said that he is. The whole fiasco was about how he felt the media portrayed McNabb – a point that Chris Collinsworth actually all but confirmed the very next week when he overhyped McNabb’s role in an Eagles’ victory that was all but due to the defense.

  • BTW, somewhat tangentially, a person can be deemed overrated who, noentheless, is still a great player. Case in point: Derek Jeter. Jeter is no doubt a Hall of Fame caliber ballplayer, yet at the same time he is completely over-hyped by a fawning media. At the time Rush made the comments I think it’s fair to say that McNabb, while a very good player, was probably slightly overrated by the media. Even if you don’t think the media was motivated by racial considerations, I thought at the time that such a consideration was fair.

  • Being a liberal means never saying you’re sorry.

  • Yeah, I thought Rush’s comment was probably correct, but imprudent for exactly the reason that has manifested this past week. People with agendas would twist his words to manipulate people without gray matter.

  • This is on of the many instances where the mainstream media tries to silence crazy uncle Rush, not because of what he says, but because they disagree with his point of view and are jealous of his following and his wealth.

    If he hasn’t pulled a Pete Rose (or something similar), why would he not be allowed partial ownership of a sports team? I guess I will never understand that one…

  • Speaking of bad journalism… Anderson Cooper did -not- use the false quotes, he merely pointed out they weren’t accurate, which is an example of yellow journalism? Logic fail.

  • No one destroyed Rush Limbaugh…he is still going strong…those who lied will have their lies backfire on them at some point…what goes around, comes around. Actually, Rush would probably not have had as much time for his radio show so the liars have enabled Rush to stay and fight against the radicals who have infiltrated our adminstration and our country. Way to go!!!!

  • Paul, Just this guy,

    Being a liberal means never saying you’re sorry.

    That was funny!

Rush Limbaugh, Race Baiter

Wednesday, September 16, AD 2009

I have to say, I try to keep my expectations for political personalities on the radio and television low. But this is pretty appalling:

It’s Obama’s America, is it not? Obama’s America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, “Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on,” and, of course, everybody says the white kid deserved it, he was born a racist, he’s white. Newsweek magazine told us this. We know that white students are destroying civility on buses, white students destroying civility in classrooms all over America, white congressmen destroying civility in the House of Representatives.

Let me get this straight, according to Rush: 1) Obama approves or is responsible somehow for white kids getting beat up on school busses. 2) Obama approves or is responsible somehow for people cheering while white kids get beat up on school busses; 3) Obama approves or is responsible somehow for the idea that white kids are all racists and deserve to get beat up on school busses; and 4) Somehow there is a connection to be drawn here to Joe Wilson’s intemperate outburst during Obama’s speach the other night.

How do people listen to this stuff?

H/T: The American Scene

Update: Re-reading the transcript again, I still think Rush is race-baiting, although not in the sense my comments above suggest. I don’t think Rush was actually intending to make a direct comment on Obama, much less about busses and school children. Rather, he was engaging in a caricature of lefty  outrage over various political and racial issues (e.g. Jimmy Carter’s recent remarks) . I think this type of caricature is irresponsible and foments racial tensions, even if Rush’s intention was just to foment partisan outrage. Race is a highly charged issue with good reason given our country’s history, and the risks of misinterpretation are very high. Accordingly, I think it is irresponsible and, in some sense, race-baiting, to belittle these concerns and treat them as if they were trivial. While I don’t want to be humorless or disingenuous, I agree with Megan McArdle that 1) if so many missed it, it’s not a very good satire; 2) what Rush is actually doing is quite bad enough.

Also, for those interested, Michael Iafrate thinks that many of the commenters in this thread are racists. I have not allowed his comments to come through because I do not think they will lead to a productive discussion here, and I will delete any comments that respond to Michael’s accusation. If you would like to discuss these issues with Michael, he blogs at Vox Nova and Catholic Anarchy.

Continue reading...

65 Responses to Rush Limbaugh, Race Baiter

  • Thanks Don. Additionally, the link is embedded in the post on the word ‘this’.

  • Oops! Sorry John Henry, I didn’t notice. Perhaps Rush could have ex-President Carter on his show, since Carter appears to believe that the motivating factor regarding opposition to Obama is race.

    To its credit,the Obama administration wasted no time in denouncing the peanut farmer.


  • Race baiting? Maybe just learning from Jimmy Carter, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Maxine Walters….

    This may be race baiting, but it is unfortunately part of our culture.

  • I hope Mr. Limbaugh’s comments were sarcastic.

  • Given Mr. Limbaugh’s personality they may very well have been. Now its another thing for Jimmy Carter, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters…

  • One of the mottoes of Rush is illustrating absurdity by being absurd. I find some of his comments objectionable, but I think most of it was a riff on the latest mantra of the left that opposition to Obama is racist.

  • I believe Rush was making a point, but I don’t listen to Rush so it’s difficult to analyze from a distance.

    I’m with Phillip and Donald on this, it’s probably sarcasm.

  • I don’t see it. Other parts of the transcript are clearly devoted to mocking people like Carter who claim that any criticism of the Obama administration is really about race.

    But that part of the transcript seems to be devoted to expressing a grievance. Maybe Rush is engaging in some sort of meta-level satire, arguing that if Republicans thought like Democrats, that rant is the type of crazy thing they would be saying….but I don’t think so.

  • I read Rod Dreher’s piece on this earlier in the day (why I can’t recall, I normally never read Dreher.)

    Certainly, it strikes me as a dumb thing to say — if only because conservatives have got to realize that they’re (often unfairly) under a microscope in regards to potential charges of racism right now.

    Clearly, it would be totally inaccurate to say this incident represented “Obama’s America” in the sense that Obama somehow wants black kids to beat up white kids on a school bus. I’m sure that if Obama had been there, he would have acted like any responsible adult by stepping in and stopping things.

    Reading the linked Limbaugh page (which to be honest is kind of hard — talk radio comes off as very stream of consciousness when written down) it sounds to me like he’s not so much trying to do that as evoke a feeling that this is the result of the constant labelling of vast sections of the US as racist. And after all, if they’re racists, maybe they need a good beating to get them in line.

    Now, I do think that the increasing tendency of leftists to label vast regions and demographic groups as all being evil, racist hicks is surely increasing the level of hatred and tension in our country. But I’ll agree it’s unfair to imply a direct causality between the left’s attempt to paint everyone who disagrees with them as a racist and a bunch of stupid high schoolers who decide to beat someone up in front of a video camera.

    So I don’t think Limbaugh’s remarks are accurate or warranted, but at the same time, I have to admit I have a time being nearly as troubled by them as Dreher is.

  • I was unsurprised to go to the link and see who wrote that post. Conor has a tendency to distort what guys like Levin and Limbaugh say to serve his own ends, and this is pretty much par for the course. I actually was listening at the time and, yes, this was Rush’s usual method of demonstrating the absurdity of race baiters like Carter and Jackson by being absurd himself.

  • I listened to the audio. Rush’s point was that in Obama’s America (i.e., the America that he is trying to create) whites are always to blame because they’re all racists. Rush says he wonders if Obama will come to the defense of the black students. His point is that Obama hates white people. [sarcasm] But nice to see so many people coming to Rush’s defense. [/sarcasm]

  • Relax only 1221 days left or sooner if the birth cert turns up.

  • John Henry,

    The following may help to put Limbaugh’s hyperbole into context – a battering of Newsweek and the race-card argument:



    I think this post and the comments indicate how effective (or not) he was in communicating.

  • So sarcasm it was, just as I thought.

  • Um, either way I’d argue it was ill-advised and inflammatory. His use of the Newsweek article was a complete distortion of the article; and all this talk about “Obama’s America” has no relation as far as I can see to kids on school busses. What possible good can come from this type of nonsense?

  • John Henry,

    Absolutely agree.

    It was sophomoric and unproductive.

  • Rush is working overtime, maybe he came up with a lemon in that speech which I did hear. Perhaps some sarcasm in there. I don’t always agree with what Rush said. I know today he was calling Jimmy Carter something like a National hemmorhoid and I’d find that more objectionable, I really do. Maybe some sort of put down is okay but that is a bit overboard especially when essentially, he is going after all of them, Teddy, Byrd, Obama, Frank, Carter and should do better than Letterman going after Palin, etc. That’s what he gets for doing a radio show 15/20 hours a week. If he’d stayed to a more “conservative” discourse, he might have done better.

    Still, with all public discourse, some of these things are part of a vicious circle. I read the Huffington Post quote on the murder of Poullion and yes, they were disrespectful. A lot of disrespect was shown to Kennedy really. These things feed on each other. Keep the conversation civil. Still, Rush probably sees and understands those in power are running roughshod over us and can we trust them? With what has been going on with Acorn, etc.?

  • Where is the condemnation of the beating that kid took?

    I found the video and I found it disgusting!

    I could see why Rush was upset, though his commentary was uncalled for.

  • Rush mentioned and does anyone remember this?? It is foggy in my mind but wasn’t their a bit of an event when Hillary ran versus Obama and former Pres. Bill Clinton, something went on where racism was mentioned, not sure if Bill Clinton was called racist or what but see, there was some sort of bruhaha with these people in the past. That was worth mentioning. Rush’s point being, something like well, even Bill C. was called a racist or something, it’s too late to look up the exact incident. Maybe Rush should do like Savage does, at least here and replay the same hour recording sometimes of course, that might not be popular with a show as big as his.

  • Rush makes good points to isolate a minute’s worth of dialog you know. He made other good points, that is why he is so good, he hits the nail on the head.

    Like how about what he said today, that the Illegal Alien (Hispanic type) lobby is now upset that the “coverage” of the bill was being taken out?? Some kinds of rumblings like that. Wilson said “you lie”, then the Democrats keep on saying death panel and illegal alien coverage is not in the bill. And now, this lobby is upset that the bill is being reworded so the Illegals can not get the health insurance through citizenship verification??

  • First of all, the attack on the bus was evil and while Rush has a point, he picked the wrong incident to make it. My take is that for centuries Blacks in America have been seething with (justifiable) anger. The election of a Black president is bound to unleash some pretty reprehensible and bizarre behavior (ie Rep B. Waters wanting to criminalize racism. Yikes!!)

  • The sad part of all this is any attack as shown on UTube like this regardless of race, gender, belief, etc is totally wrong and should be not be tolerated or accepted by anyone. Why we continue to use race when viewing wrongful acts or calling something racist is wrong and will never be right. They can not continue to be two standards.

  • Racism is a real problem but it is a more powerful political tool so it will be kept alive by a very tiny minority of actual racists and by a large majority of our elected idiots becuase it is politically expedient.

    In truth, racism is diabolical. It is a clear attack on unity. Racism used becuase of actual racism or just politics is a war tactic, divide and conquer. We should not stand for it. There is one standard for behavior and it has nothing to do with race even though all ten points of it were delivered by one of them Jews.

  • I actually appreciate your willingness to criticize Limbaugh.

  • Also, in relation to this particular incident in Belleville, Ill. I understand the police chief himself said it was NOT racially motivated, plus, other black youths on the bus tried to STOP the attack.

    This is a perfect example of why I can no longer stand to listen to Rush even though I used to listen to his show years ago. His “demonstrating absurdity by being absurd” shtick only goes so far.

  • There there are these published words of a prominent politician:

    “Should you refuse this defeat and lash out at your captors, they would have a name for that, too, a name that could cage you just as good. Paranoid. Militant. Violent. N—–.”

    “Any distinction between good and bad whites held negligible meaning.”

    And the same author on how Malcolm X’s autobiography “spoke” to him. One line in particular “stayed with me,” he says. “He spoke of a wish he’d once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged.”

  • Yeah, I mean, let me be clear: I don’t enjoy Rush and I don’t listen to him, because while I can kind of see a lot of the points he’s trying to make, I don’t think the daily grist mill of absurdity and argument is really all that good thing a listen to very often. (Certainly, not for me.) So it’s not so much that I’m saying Rush is right to have said what he did — it’s certainly not what I would say — it’s just that I think the “Rush says it’s Obama’s fault that black kids are beating up white kids and that’s incredibly wicked of him” take that Dreher and a couple other commentators had is off base.

    I’d rate Rush as having made a stupid exaggeration, but not a wicked accusation.

  • I will say that I do listen to him on occasion. I find him right on sometimes, over the top others and flat out wrong sometimes. I use my judgement to decide which case he falls into. Sort of like reading blogs.

    And so one judges politicians. The above quotes I post I would argue are not over the top hyperbole but flat out wrong racism.

  • I usually listen to Rush while I am driving to and from courthouses. Usually I agree with him, sometimes I do not. I often find him entertaining. I have always admired the steadfastness of his fight against abortion on his show. He is correct that one of the major motivating factors of RINOS (Republicans in Name Only) in the GOP is their support for abortion.

  • Aside from immigration, I often found myself agreeing with many of Rush’s positions, I just burned out on the political talk radio genre and approach — back when I had a 50 mile each way commute in California. I’ll grant that of the major talk show personalities, he’s probably one of the best ones. I much prefered him to Hannity or O’Reilly or Ingram. But after a while, I just couldn’t see a whole lot of point to talk radio — I guess around the same time I stopped watching news on TV. Too much air time to fill, and too much harping whatever the issue of that day is.

    I think what I like about blogging by comparison is that most bloggers don’t limit themselves to whatever the news of the day is. You get anything from political theory, to a profile of a historical event or person, to news headlines, to general life and commentary.

  • Someone mentioned Belleville Illinois as the scene of the fight, that must be a suburb of St. Louis, I don’t know but this is close to Rush’s backyard.

    But places like East St. Louis have horrendous crime rates. I myself would leave the conversation alone.

    He by the way, did have a black caller yesterday who was all upset by Obama’s acts, the unemployment rate and national debt. You know, if one has friends that are African Americans truly and supposedly, Rush’s sidekick is, the guy named Snerdley, it would be hard for me to go off on a tangent like he did. If the roles were reversed or involving other minorities, we would not want to have the same as well.

    So, yes, in a way, Rush does get in a mode of blame it all on Obama and the democrats. I guess he has such a stockpile of goodwill that for me, if this is a faux pas, it won’t mean much.

    The songs are good satire, I know in recent years, they have done take offs on “American Pie”, “The Weight” and others.

    I do believe in helping out the poor immigrant per the view of the Catholic Church. One also doesn’t want to kill the goose that layed the golden egg.

  • I don’t necessarily think he meant to blame it on Obama directly. By “Obama’s America”, I interpret him to mean in a society that would elect someone such as Obama – one that is according to Rush anti-white. Although the use of the possessive does make this interpretation somewhat probelmatic.

  • I agree with Fr. Charlie. Just half a century ago, there were water fountains for “colored only;” coloreds used the dirty, old escalators at the rear of buildings and entered buildings via back doors only, they sat only at the rear of the bus, there were “white only” movie theaters, public swimming pools, drive-in restaurants, churches, schools. It really was horrid. So why wouldn’t there be rage in some of the black population? The school bus incident in Belleville, Illinois was indeed labeled a racial attack initially. Only after the incident intensified in the news was it downgraded to “bullying.” This rage has been stoked by clever manipulators for greedy purposes for a long time and has erupted into chaos. Think ACORN.

  • Being oppressed is no reason to be ‘angry’. The persecuting Romans gave early Christians plenty of reasons to be ‘angry’, yet the Christians were recognized by how they loved not their anger.

    Most black people in America are Christian. That means, if they are true to their faith, they belong to Christ before they belong to a racial identity.

    Has America been institutionally racist in the past? Of course she has, who in their right mind would ignore that fact? Are some Americans racist today? Yes — and some of them are white too! But the country is NOT racist. We have corrected the errors of the past. We stand for liberty and justice for all.

    Rush is usually correct, but I wonder which one of us filling 4 hours of daily airtime won’t be caught saying something wrong, offensive or simply out of context? Hmm . . . I remember learning something about casting the first stone.

    We really need to get beyond this race thing. I am so sick of it being used as a fund raising, attention getting, dividing tactic. I also find this hair-trigger retort of racist as a terrible distraction and overshadowing of ACTUAL incidents of racism. Furthermore, what the heck does it matter the reason anyone is mistreated? Does it make a difference if one commits murder because the victim is of a different race, had some money, stepped on my toe, or whatever — isn’t the crime of murder the actual problem?

    Bullying is the same. If one is bullied because he’s white, or gay, or black, or small, or restrainedradical — what difference does it make? Bullying is the crime PERIOD.

    The commandment is DO NOT KILL and in light of Christ DO NOT BE ANGRY, etc.

    Let’s get off this race thing. It is a branch not the root. Racism is a symptom not the disease.

    Keep in mind that the only form of discrimination that is accepted publicly today is discrimination against Christians, especially Catholics — no matter what color or sex or national origin or age or handicap they have.

  • My last name is Slavic, Slavs were Slaves!

    I will make sure I maintain the rights to have grudges and gripes against everyone.

  • Moe,

    The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and conducted the Bataan Death March. We should be very angry with them. Perhaps it even justified the Bomb. Or maybe not.

  • Being part Cherokee I am still waiting for a formal apology from the US. That, and a mansion in Georgia, will allow me to lay down my ancestral grievances. 🙂

  • Ah! You are a Southerner.

  • My point, gentlemen, is that our tragic history of racial enmity is continuing to be stoked by manipulators over racial indignities that blacks endured and feel that they are continuing to endure. In enumerating the injustices we perpetrated on the colored, I was attempting to remind us, me included, of these injustices and to elicit a particle of empathy, but it is quite obvious that I failed. I’m part Cherokee too. If the government mandated that my employer hire a certain percentage of Cherokee Indians, perhaps, I too, would feel obligated to harbor rage and have the luxury of wallowing in the injustices that my ancestors endured in the Trail of Tears.

  • My empathy does not extend to saying rage for past offenses is justified. Particuarly if such rage results in further injustices.

  • But perhaps my empathy is limited by my being part Yaqui – the only Mexican Indian tribe not conquered by the Spanish. You Cherokees are too easy to beat it seems.

  • The Yaqui endured their share of injustice and brutality, also. I googled and read where 150 Yaqui were burned inside a church in 1868. Others were sold as slaves.

  • Yes. By Mexicans alas and not Spanish. As indians killed and enslaved other indians. So I should rage. Right?

  • “You Cherokees are too easy to beat it seems.”

    Depends upon the Cherokee. Stand Watie was the last Confederate general to surrender during the Civil War. Of course by that time my Cherokee ancestors had already become yankees in Illinois.

  • Where does this stop. Now Mrs Pelosi is equating the people who are against the health bills to those who were anti gay in 1970’s San Francisco that cause the murder of their Mayor. etal…I do not care what color, creed, status, etc. if one disagrees with another they have the right to free speech, but I agree they can use a civil tone. Here is another politician trying to evoke another response by her rhetoric and use her wiles for political gain. This so called pseudo Catholic is a disgrace.

  • Hey I’m part Cherokee too!

    Maybe we should change the name of the website to Cherokee Catholic!

  • Nah Tito, the “palefaces” among us would feel left out! 🙂

  • In the past few years dealing to the best of my recollection, Denmark apologized for an invasion by the Vikings against the UK.

    This was a famous raid, I believe it is one where some Monks were killed on Scottish territory I believe. That raid also happened around the year 1000.

    I mean, how far do we take things? And apologies, this is now way off of the topic of Rush. But so it goes.

  • Tom,
    Is it a perceived insufficiency of an apology, or political correctness that is a large part of the problem? A study at Northwestern University showed that whites will tend to avoid blacks out of fear and anxiety over appearing racist. The study concluded that political correctness was making things worse. There’s been two instances in the media where blacks have taken offense at the word, “niggardly”, when, in fact, it has no relationship to the other similar-sounding word. We can’t say “black hole” for fear of offending the sensitivities of some. It just goes on and on ad nauseum.

  • I know Moe, if one listened to Rush today, you’d think he folowed this conversation, Honestly though that sounds farfetched OR, he simply addressed this situation again.

    Belleville Illinois mentioned in it?? Yes.

    Called St. Louis his home?? It sounded like he did. Now, he worked for the Kansas City Royals from what I think I’ve heard, so I don’t know where Cape Girardeau is.

    Anyway, I thought he elaborated on it too much, not a big deal.

  • Let’s be perfectly clear. Rush’s intent and purpose as a bloviating bigot is to arouse the basest inclinations of the masses. His sweeping generalizations and ad hominum attacks on the president have racist undertones which he exploits at every opportunity.

    I was wondering if Rush was still on the drugs and therefore not responsible for his comments.

  • Harold, I guess your concern for civility does not entend to those who propound views you disagree with does it?

  • I find all of conflict or car-chase media objectionable as I do with MSM. Anyone that only listens to Rush or does not insist on hearing two points of views all the time are self-indoctrinating kool-aid drinkers. They are no better then those they complain about on the left or in MSM.

    I will never listen to others that will claim the other side is evil and we are not.

  • What is the difference between talk radio and a radical muslim cleric standing on a corner yelling and controlling the conversation? What would you tell a young Muslim boy attending a west Pakistan madras hearing rhetoric every day that the Great Satan is destroying all that is good in the world? Is this not what we are doing to ourselves in this country?

  • If the talk radio host is mocking and the imam is serious, a world of difference.

  • Harold: Let us be clear as well, in what you say, then in turn, the episode with the Cambridge police, going to Reverend Wright’s church, some Czar appointments, connections with Bill Ayers likewise would put the Democratic side very much in question as well as to regards to racism and other issues, wouldn’t it?? I’d like to see the side run by satire at the same time and then see if we’d be calling it that. This Maher fellow and his reporting on the Drudge Report recently?? And no matter how often I read the Drudge I did not see the exact banner headline or caption to a story that he was quoting from. It makes me wonder. Anyone?? Maher said Drudge used a short for “negatives” and that could be construed in a racist way.

  • Mark,

    I will never listen to others that will claim the other side is evil and we are not.

    so no side can be considered evil in your mind?

  • Respectfully and in fair-play, since this has been updated, I see now, there is a video calling into question as to whether what Obama said in 1995 is race-baiting. My computer has a slow download, so we can leave it to others, to question if this merits being called “race baiting” as well. It did not take long. I do see an angle but I’m not sure how strong it is.


    2 wrongs don’t make a right.

  • “so no side can be considered evil in your mind?”

    “Evil” is a very strong word. I reserve that for truly evil people. If people are claiming that one side is infected with a false conscience or evil and are going to “destroy” all that is good and then they claim that they are the true saviors of the world, then no I will not listen to them.

    Seen it to many times in history. Osama Bin Laden talks about the great satan and that he will save the world. Then we have the religious right that believes us seculars are destroying all that is good and that the religious right or Christian Nationalist will save this great country.

    I will not fall for such BS from the left or the right.

    When we start to fear the future as we do now we all grab hold of the strongest tree, the tree with the strongest roots, our faith and ethnicity. We then start to blame the problems of the world on “others” and herd up like animals.

    Does that sound all to familiar across the world and in this country?

  • “If the talk radio host is mocking and the imam is serious, a world of difference.”

    And you see “mocking” as a quality to be respected by anyone. I suppose an imam could tell everyone that he is an entertainer.

    I see no difference. I see two men that have anger and hate and they are speaking to individuals that are not interested in the opinions of others.

    Neither are interested in the truth, only their own egos. And those that solely listen to Rush or conservative or liberal media are no different then a young Muslim man that hangs on every world of the Imam and does not seak to broaden their knowledge of the world. I see no difference.

    This type of discourse does this country no good.

    I would rather be a positive force for change then a negative force for change. Being angry and negative only takes away from the moment and all the wonderful diversity that is to be found in this world. I live for the moment, I do not fear the future, nor look back as to many do. I do not have time for people like Rush, they are a waste of energy.

  • Mark Baird: What you don’t like is reflected in your own belief system, “the richness of diversity” vs. the Americanism of Rush, Secularism vs. Christianity, etc.

  • Actually mocking is a valid form of rhethoric. I have no proplem with it whatsoever especially when some are so easily using the racism card. That’s the real hate.

  • Pingback: lets wake up white folks! « The Race Factor

Partisanship and Empty Rhetoric

Wednesday, March 4, AD 2009

It seems in recent week that an ever-increasing focus has fallen on Rush Limbaugh and his radio show.  Not only have the usual suspects worked themselves into a frenzy over him, but we’ve even had President Obama command Congressional Republicans to ignore him.  And the White House has yet to let up on speaking against him.  White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has even taken a few stabs at Limbaugh.  Even more amazingly, Republican Chairman Michael Steele has voiced disapproval of Limbaugh’s talks.

Continue reading...

52 Responses to Partisanship and Empty Rhetoric

  • Lambasting Limbaugh serves two purposes for Obama: (1) icing the Republicans who have emerged as the more serious party in the debates surrounding the stimulus bill and (2) making a grotesque caricature of him the poster boy for the Fairness Doctrine.

  • And a very stupid move it is for Obama. Mud wrestling with a pundit is never a good move for a President, especially someone who reaches 20,000,000 listeners a week. Other than driving up the ratings for Rush, I can’t think of anything positive that Obama will accomplish by this. It is all downside for him.

  • I am baffled by the Limbaugh discussions raging through the blogosphere. Limbaugh has been around forever and his schtick is wearyingly familiar. I suppose Republicans don’t have much else going for them, and Democrats would rather not talk about the stimulus because it’s not particularly popular. But who cares about Limbaugh? Compelling politicians and fundamentals control political outcomes; radio hosts do not. I don’t intend this to be a criticism of the post (which I basically agree with), just an observation.

  • Obama is not smart here. As a talking head said earlier today, it is counterproductive to get into a urinating contest with a skunk….

  • I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh (not since he had his television show, anyway) but I think it would be a rather entertaining debate were Barack Obama to respond to his challenge to debate. =)

  • Christopher,

    Limbaugh would mop the floor… unless Obama had a teleprompter.

  • Yeah, the head of Harvard Law review against the Oxymoron, that is, the moron addicted to Oxycotin.

  • Mark,

    high or not, Limbaugh embarrasses your boy.

  • ps. generally speaking POTUS is a higher office than head of Harvard Law Review, either way the man stutters whenever he’s put on the spot… not exactly quick on his feet (except on the basketball court, better for the country he focuses on his jump shots, he’s hell on the economy, and the unborn).

  • “the moron addicted to Oxycotin.”

    A moron who has been the most powerful voice on radio for almost two decades? As for oxycotin, I believe that Rush licked that addiction. Of course if oxycotin is going to be brought against Rush then I assume that cocaine may be brought up against Obama.

  • I did not realize that A-C was populated by so many ditto-heads. Interesting; no, actually, quite understandable.

  • “A moron who has been the most powerful voice on radio ….”

    So was Father Coughlin in the 30s. Your point?

  • Father Coughlin, whatever else could be said about him, was no moron. You do not like Rush or his politics Mr. DeFrancisis, but you have given no evidence that he is a moron, and his success for 20 years in a highly competitive environment would argue otherwise. Your ideological soulmates at the moribund Air America could attest to that.

  • 1. To various other folks above me- no moron can maintain an audience of 20 mil over 20 years. Would have been wiped off the map long ago. 2. Love how the sensitive and caring always bring up the Oxycontin problems. Not the usual yes they’re sick people and we should care for them and so forth. Replaced his weight as the usual cheap shot point. See how these Christians care for one another. 3. There has been no one else in mass media history with his ability to get into your head and stay there. Polarizing and proud of it. Not enough media attention to his offer to debate the Apostle live- on his radio program- and handle all of the Apostle’s arrangements for transportation, luxury hotels, Secret Service demands, and post-debate party with Allen Bros. Kobe beef. Polarizing enough for the morning phone calls among Greenberg, Carville, Begala and Stephanopoulos to arrange talking points. Say- at least three of them work for major media organizations. Shouldn’t their bosses tell them- choose between the morning calls and your paychecks from us? Or would that be a concession to Limbaugh? 4. Libs need boogie men like Tiller the Killer needs poor dumb pregnant 18-year-olds. Since Richard Nixon. Rush is now Boogie Man Number One, in the absence of GWB and Company. Knows it. Relishes it. 5. Doesn’t faze him. Remember, Slick Willie once remarked that he was holding Rush accountable for the Oklahoma City bombings. 6. So much for the personal destruction- his CPAC speech last Saturday was carried live- start to finish- on both Fox News and CNN. Bad publicity is better than none at all. 7. I feel about him the way Walter Lippman wrote about another hero, H.L. Mencken- “the man increases your will to live.”

  • Yeah, the head of Harvard Law review against the Oxymoron, that is, the moron addicted to Oxycotin.

    Given that Obama has written about his own pot and cocaine episodes, is that really where one wants to go on the topic?

    I listened to Rush a lot back when he was fairly new and I was in high school — and in my previous job he used to always be on the radio when I was working out in the warehouse with the shipper and the drivers — but I haven’t heard him in years at this point.

    He takes a populist and sometimes hyperbolic approach to conservatism, and I don’t agree with him on all topics, but the guy is generally far smarter (and indeed far more polite to his opponents when they’re actually on the phone with him) than most liberals give him credit for.

    What in the world Obama’s administration thinks it can gain by picking him for a personal fight I don’t understand. Perhaps they actually believed their own rhetoric that the whole country would unify under their banner.

    For conservatives, however, it think Rush’s apparent dominance in the conservative debate right now is more of a mixed blessing. He’s a solid radio personality and a smart guy, but if his current prominance is the result of our lacking any clear policy direction or high profile leader (and I fear it is) that’s a problem.

  • Amazing. So quickly derailed…

    So tell me, guys, what do you think about my premise that partisanship and hard-fought arguments are necessary for the shaping of good legislation?

    And maybe I’m blind, but how exactly do Rush’s drug-abuse problems fit into that?

    Frankly I have no problem with an Obama/Limbaugh debate, if that’s what it takes to actually have a debate over issues. However, I’m leery of Limbaugh. I read through his speech to the CPAC, and maybe I’m blind, but I didn’t catch much of anything in the way of substance.

  • Along with that, I thought dissent was patriotic. Not that Limbaugh is always (nor necessarily even often) correct. But I think Obama is horrifically misguided in his policy choices at this time. Let them debate.

  • It doesn’t matter who the President is or who the pundit is, it wouldn’t be fair or appropriate for a President to have a debate with him. A President, even if he agrees on a particular point, might not be able so say so for prudential, diplomatic reasons. Ditto for valid arguments against the pundit. Also, a politician, regardless of his policy has to be mindful how he presents it if he is going to convince opposition or lead. A true statesman (not saying I think Obama is worthy of the title) with a clear and solid ideology and policy position would only do his cause damage by such an activity.

    The above is a defense for Obama as President and I would apply it to any President. However, I concur with those who believe that as far as having a well thought out and principled idea of policy and ideology – and one that he can proudly proclaim to the masses rather than obfuscate – Limbaugh would prevail.

    Sorry, Ryan. Yes, I agree that partisanship is important for proper governance, though I would qualify it. The partisanship demonstrated by this country’s founders was often fierce, but quite correct and the cream truly came to the top. The motivation on all sides was primarily what was best for going forward. These days, regardless of party affiliation, partisanship often exists for its own sake and for personal/party interest and I’m not so sure that a quality outcome is forged from the process.

  • Rick,

    the President already violated the principle here by personally attacking Rush Limbaugh, as well as Fox News. That’s exactly why he is being challenged.


  • These days, regardless of party affiliation, partisanship often exists for its own sake and for personal/party interest and I’m not so sure that a quality outcome is forged from the process.

    I’ll agree quite a bit to that. However, I think there’s a problem in that people anymore perceive all partisanship as being of the cynical type you just mentioned. I think that works to the advantage of one party or another because any legitimate protest/partisanship can be written off (in the eyes of the public) as just more of the same political squabbling that gets nothing done.

    Still, one of the more remarkable conclusions about this that I’ve come to is that we keep trying to find a system in which, regardless of our fallen state, we’ll always end up at the right place with the right answer.

  • I understand that, Matt. I never said I thought Obama should have said anything about Limbaugh, Fox, or any other commentator. And even if put on the spot by a member of the press corp to address something a pundit said, he should decline or give a respectful but dismissive response. The office demands an air of dignity, the president shouldn’t attack pundits anymore than he should debate them. I’m happy to cry foul on Obama for his actions, but I think it wrong to want him to further damage his or the office’s credibility by debating a pundit. It’s all just wrong.

  • Rick,

    Limbaugh is pointing out the President’s error in diminishing his office by making personal attacks on pundits. Regardless, following up his smear campaign with a debate doesn’t seem to me to diminish it any further.

  • Regardless, following up his smear campaign with a debate doesn’t seem to me to diminish it any further.

    Maybe, maybe not. I still think it would. We can certainly disagree on that point and the world will continue to spin. 😉

  • Ryan:

    I knew immediately that this thread would become a debate about the merits of Rush. But as for the actual topic of your post, I completely agree, and have said as much on my blog in a previous post.

  • Sorry guys, the opportunity arose via one commenter to make it about Rush, and I did not resist the temptation.

    But I am surprised what we have learned in the course of derailment about Mr. McClarey’s thoughts in regards to Father Coughlin.

    I’ll leave it at that.

  • But I am surprised what we have learned in the course of derailment about Mr. McClarey’s thoughts in regards to Father Coughlin.

    [McClarey] Father Coughlin, whatever else could be said about him, was no moron.

    I don’t think Mr. McClarey shared us many of his thoughts at all on Fr. Coughlin. But the one thought he did share, that Fr. Coughlin wasn’t a moron [in spite of whatever else could be said about him] is fair and accurate. Like everyone else, Fr. Coughlin had some good traits and some bad traits, some of the bad ones were pretty bad too, but he still wasn’t a moron – a person of subnormal intelligence. He was actually quite intelligent, but even that doesn’t mean he was right on everything, especially his antisemitism streak.

    Mr. DeFrancisis, what was the purpose of the remark about Mr.McClarey and Fr. Coughlin? What point were you trying to make?

  • What point is Donald trying to make, that is the question.

  • It seemed apparent to me that he was taking issue with you labeling Fr. Coughlin a moron, just as he took issue with you labeling Limbaugh a moron. There’s nothing wrong with you disliking Limbaugh or anyone else who you think actively does harm or stands for destructive things, but it’s best to do so by speaking the truth to the best of our ability.

    I probably feel the same way about Obama as you do Limbaugh, but I wouldn’t say Obama is a moron. He’s clearly not. He might be a very ambitious fellow, have what I consider a very flawed worldview or moral foundation, and support what I consider horrendous positions. It would be easier to just say, he’s an evil moron, but that’s not correct or necessarily just and we’d all be best served if I explained why I thought those things if they weren’t readily apparent.

  • Mark,

    It means Donald is fair minded enough to recognize that not everyone he disagrees with is a moron.

    On Ryan’s original point,

    I think it’s a key distinction. I too want to see Obama’s financial plans fail, and fail quickly, so we can move on to something I think will work. To insist that everyone “hope for success” results in a curious sort of double talk.

    To try it on the right side, I would assume that those who opposed the Iraq war would not want to have been told, “If you care at all about the US and the Iraqi people, you should want the Iraq War to succeed — it’s just that your definition of success involves not going to war and keeping the Hussein dictatorship in place. But we all want ‘success’ for the war.”

    That would be a useless way to talk. For those who think that Obama’s financial and social plans would be a disaster for the country, it’s obviously the correct thing for them to want to see him fail.

  • Darwin,

    Perhaps you do not know of the “SOMEONE MUST BE BLAMED” Father Coughlin well enoung, maybe due to Mr. Lugari’s strange defense. Read Adorno on the hate-monger and scapegoater. (Yes, I purposely chose such charged words, as they are most appropraiate in this case).

  • I agree he was certainly an unsavory character — and an interesting example of how fascist/statist and left/populist instincts often met and blended in the 30s in a way that’s often forgotten now — but I don’t think he was a moron. Generally speaking, one does not come such a widely listened to and influential figure by being a moron, unless by “moron” one simply means “someone I don’t like”.

    So for example, I tend to think of John Edwards as being a living example of much of what is wrong (and badly and dangerously wrong) with the American left, but does that necessarily mean that I should refer to him as a moron?

  • A bit about Fr. Coughlin:

    “He was an early supporter of Roosevelt’s New Deal reforms and coined the phrase “Roosevelt or ruin”, which became famous during the early days of the first FDR administration. Another phrase he became known for was “The New Deal is Christ’s Deal.”[4] In January 1934, Coughlin testified before Congress in support of FDR’s policies, saying, “If Congress fails to back up the President in his monetary program, I predict a revolution in this country which will make the French Revolution look silly!” He further stated to the Congressional hearing, “God is directing President Roosevelt.” [5]

    Coughlin’s support for Roosevelt and his New Deal faded later in 1934, when he founded the National Union for Social Justice (NUSJ), a nationalistic worker’s rights organization which grew impatient with what it viewed as the President’s unconstitutional and pseudo-capitalistic monetary policies. His radio programs preached more and more about the negative influence of “money changers” and “permitting a group of private citizens to create money” on the general welfare of the public.[6] He also spoke about the need for monetary reform. Coughlin claimed that the Depression was a “cash famine”. Some modern economic historians, in part, agree with this assessment. [7] Coughlin proposed monetary reforms, including the elimination of the Federal Reserve System, as the solution.

    Among the articles of the NUSJ, were work and income guarantees, nationalizing “necessary” industry, wealth redistribution through taxation of the wealthy, federal protection of worker’s unions, and decreasing property rights in favor of the government controlling the country’s assets for “public good.” [8] Illustrative of his disdain for capitalism is his statement that, “We maintain the principle that there can be no lasting prosperity if free competition exists in industry. Therefore, it is the business of government not only to legislate for a minimum annual wage and maximum working schedule to be observed by industry, but also to curtail individualism that, if necessary, factories shall be licensed and their output shall be limited.” [9]”

    He probably would be writing for Obama today.

  • fascist/statist and left/populist instincts often met and blended

    At least until the last election. This describes Obama’s policies precisely.

  • Strange defense? How so? What was in error?

  • Maybe I should state something here. I think my assertion (Donald’s initially) is reasonable and factually correct. There is nothing to my knowledge that would indicate Fr. Coughlin was a moron. I agree with his views that FDR and the New Deal were bad, but I also disagree with a number of his prescriptions. I think he was good in that he cared about social justice, but bad in that bought into bigotry and antisemitism and harbored some sympathy for fascism as a whole (dislike his sympathy for National Socialism, but appreciate his support of Franco in Spain – different countries under different circumstances with different leaders and intentions).

    Fr. Coughlin was very dedicated to St. Therese, the Little Flower and was responsible for building a beautiful shrine to her here in Detroit. I don’t think it’s wise or just to minimize souls to good or evil, moron or brilliant, as Mr. DeFrancisis seems wont to do. Praise which is good and condemn which is evil, but always deal in truth and justice. For all we know, Fr. Coughlin is in Heaven praying for us – at any rate, he now knows where he was right and wrong, and what he was culpable for.

    To ditto some points others made, Fr. Coughlin should be viewed as a hero to many on the left.

  • I gues Democracy is a messy thing. Anyone can offer their opinion. Rush Limbaugh, Fr. Coughlin, Keith Olbermann etc. etc. Often those opinions are offered to us by political and academic elites. Often those opinions are no more correct than the guy next door.

  • Moron comes from the Greek “moros”, the latter of which means dull. Calling someone moronic can therefore connote dullness of mind to the extent that he/she lacks good or sharp judgment.

    I do not apologize for calling the someone who encouraged and exemplified a racist-tainted laziness of judgment towards Jews in the 30s a moron, his devotion to the Little Flower withstanding.

  • Of course promoting abortion is showing a lack of judgment. Therefore Obama is …

  • Touche. 😉

    But I’ve gone on too far already.

    I encourage all to return to the actual topic that Ryan means to discuss.

  • Good sport Mark.

  • Mark,

    so are you acknowledging that Obama is a moron, or that your moron comment was really just “partisanship and empty rhetoric”?



  • Matt,

    Mark acknowledged the point. Let’s just move on.

  • Mark acknowledged the point. Let’s just move on.

    In the spirit of the thread: Mega-dittos to John Henry.

  • Partisanship, wielded properly, is a necessary thing. Keeping the debates alive and lively is why we even bother having a two-party system.

    I agree, but the ‘wielded properly’ modifier does a lot of the work here. People have very different ideas about what is proper. In the debates over the stimulus, for example, Congressional Republicans claimed to be acting on small government, anti-pork principle. Democrats claimed they could not be taken seriously given their support for the Bush-era deficits, and that they were engaged in irresponsible political point-scoring. Obama suggested much the same thing with his efforts to depict himself as ‘post-partisan’.

    I think most people agree in principal that it is good to have multiple perspectives, etc. But they often find reasons to dismiss other perspectives with tu quoque’s in practice.

  • DC/JH,

    what point did he acknowledge? Ryan’s post is about partisanship and empty rhetoric. I would like to know if Mark’s admitting to engaging that practice, or that he thinks Obama’s a moron too.

    By the way, in the spirit of bipartisanship and intellectual honesty I condemn the actions of Sam Brownback, and believe that he is a MORON for supporting a rabid pro-abortion candidate for DHS. I will resist the temptation to impune his morality, that’s for his bishop to examine.

  • Well, unless it was cross posting the exchange appeared to be:

    Phillip Says:

    Of course promoting abortion is showing a lack of judgment. Therefore Obama is …

    Mark DeFrancisis Says:

    Touche. 😉

  • DarwinCatholic,

    I don’t think Mark D. would admit that Obama is a moron, so I presume he is retracting his accusation that Rush is, and acknowledging that he practices “partisanship and empty rhetoric”, but I could be mistaken. It would be more helpful if he would clarify his “touche”.

  • Matt,

    In the frey of verbal exchange, I broadened the definition of moronic. In doing so, I admitm I was seeking not primarily truth, but scoring immediate argumentative points.

    And I would not have even had the chance to succumb to such maneuvering, had I been more careful with what I chose to call both Limbaugh and Coughlin.

    But inasmuch as Obama clearly lacks good judgment with respect to the abortion issue, I conceded that he is/was moronic in that regard, using my broadened usage of the term.

    Any way, if I would have allowed the discussion to remain about what Ryan’s ultimate questions brought into focus and veer toward a discussion of Rush’s merits per se, none of this would have ever arisen.

    As I did contribute to furthering the conversation by actually changing its purposed content, I apologize to all involved, especially Ryan Harkins, who wrote a nice post.

    I hope that suffices.

    Does that suffice?

  • Mark,

    Does that suffice?


  • John Henry,

    In the debates over the stimulus, for example, Congressional Republicans claimed to be acting on small government, anti-pork principle. Democrats claimed they could not be taken seriously given their support for the Bush-era deficits, and that they were engaged in irresponsible political point-scoring.

    This brings up one of the gray areas that always makes me stop and think when we talk about partisanship. As I said in my post, I’m against bringing up someone’s drug addiction…unless one can show how it pertains to the argument. Now, I think there’s is some reason, possibly some merit, to bickering in that sense, in that we’re questioning motive behind a particular stance.

    Now this example is made up, so don’t try to find anyone who matches. But suppose there’s someone who has been heavy into drugs, but supports open borders with Mexico. Questioning his border policy based on his past drug abuse might–and I say might, because even in this it might be stretching things a bit–be based on the premise that if the borders remain open, drugs keep flowing through, and thus he can get his drug fix so much easier. But even then, that doesn’t necessarily touch on the merits of his arguments, though it may make any legislation he tries to pass needing close scrutiny.

    To an extent, the seeming mud-flinging may serve some purpose in trying to judge whether or not we should trust a particular politician. For instance, while I hope Congressional Republicans block some, if not most, of this fiscal irresponsibility, I don’t trust them to be fiscally responsible themselves. And the point the Democrats made about Republicans not being true conservatives for having passed all of Bush’s spending is a valid point. But is valid so long as we’re trying to judge whether we can trust Congressional Republicans. It loses its edge when it becomes a debate between who we should trust more to be fiscally responsible.



    I hope that suffices.

    Does that suffice?

    Apology accepted, not that it is necessary. Besides, your very first comment still makes me chortle, and my wife got quite a kick out of it.