The Vast JournoList Conspiracy

Tuesday, July 27, AD 2010

UPDATED BELOW

The vast JournoList conspiracy can be called over-heated rhetoric.

But then again, facts get in the way.

The liberal staff writer for the Washington Post, Howard Kurtz, agrees with me on the left-leaning JournoList:

To conservatives, it is a pulling back of the curtain to expose the media’s mendacity.

To liberals, it is a selective sliming based on e-mails that were supposed to remain private.

But there is no getting around the fact that some of these messages, culled from the members-only discussion group Journolist, are embarrassing. They show liberal commentators appearing to cooperate in an effort to hammer out the shrewdest talking points against the Republicans — including, in one case, a suggestion for accusing random conservatives of being racist.

Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller site, which has been dribbling out the e-mails, drew fresh reaction Thursday with a piece about Journolist members savaging Sarah Palin. The former Alaska governor responded with a slam at the media’s “sick puppies,” saying she was confronted during the 2008 campaign by “hordes of Obama’s opposition researchers-slash-‘reporters.’ ” But the people making the most stridently partisan comments in the invitation-only group weren’t reporters at all — they were out-of-the-closet liberals acting like, well, liberals.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

12 Responses to The Vast JournoList Conspiracy

  • William Tecumseh Sherman:
    “I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast.”

  • “To liberals, it is a selective sliming based on e-mails that were supposed to remain private.”

    Well, all the participants need to do is to release the archive, something they have been unwilling to do. Of course to conservatives none of this comes as a surprise: the mainstream media, by and large, is made up of men and women who tilt left and despise conservatives. None of this of course affects their coverage of news. 🙂

  • No, not at all. Their views never affect how they report it.

    Thank beelzebub for MSNBC and CNN!

  • Iowahawk has his own special take on the controversy:

    “Welcome to the Journolist Top Secret Progressive He-Man Wingnut Haters Club and L33t H4xoR Chat Room. Disclaimer: this is a private discussion forum intended solely for the benefit of JournoList members. Reproduction, transmission, redistribution, or description, in whole or in part, of any content (including, but not limited to, private insults, insider innuendo, political manifestos, hair styling tips and/or gossip) without the expressed written consent of the commissioner is strictly prohibited. Please read and agree to the User Consent Form. And, as always, remember the first rule of JournoList: there is no JournoList.”

    http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2010/06/ill-take-a-cashiers-check-mr-breitbart.html

  • Mickey Kaus:

    “”Shut up” seems to be a favorite talking point of Journolist defenders. But I don’t think non-members need to accept their message discipline.

    Journolist was a terrible idea from the start, not so much because it enabled the promotion of “lock-steppedness” and a progressive party line across media organizations (though Salam more or less concedes that it did), or because it fostered an “us vs. them” mentality (which it also obviously did). It was a bad idea, mainly because it took a process that could have been public, democratic and transparent and gratuitously made it private, stratified and opaque. This was an odd move for “progressives” to make when confronted with the revolutionary openness of the Web. It’s as if they’d looked at our great national parks and said hey, what we really need is to carve out a private walled enclave for the well connected. Invited to a terrific party, they immediately set up a VIP room.”

    http://kaus.sitebuilder.completecampaigns.com/sbcc/blog_permalink.php?seq=1&id=732

  • Invited to a terrific party, they immediately set up a VIP room.”

    That seems to define many, if not most, liberals, including his Liberalness Obama, peace be upon him.

  • I wouldn’t have problems with these sorts of revelations if they were just honest in their work.

    I make no secrets about my biases and points of view, why should they? Oh yeah, to be “objective.” Well, that was their first mistake. There’s no such thing as objective journalism.

  • One feature of modern journalists is a shameless tendency to overestimate themselves. Some of them truly believe that they can reshape people’s minds, many more pretend to believe it. Or they start barking when the Vatican issues a statement in a way they wouldn’t have done, because PR is oohhh soooo important, don’t you know……
    This is simply not the case.

    I am Italian and I can tell you that even after 17 years of shameless linkage between media, politics and business the impressive media apparatus of the most famous thief in the land could never move more than a couple of percentage points of the electorate; and this not without an immense effort and expense and losing two elections in the process.

    In the UK where I now live the amazingly leftist BBC is omnipresent and utterly ignored by the electorate in its voting decisions.
    In May the “Guardian” (and old-style socialist newspaper) tried to separate themselves from the sure loser, the Labour party and supported the Liberal Democrates; the LibDems promptly went on to lose votes and seats.

    Another big newspaper, the Sun, only support the probable winner in order to be able to say that they are the kingmaker; they are rather the king’s jester, methinks

    There are notable exceptions of course, but you get my drift.

  • Has anyone really taken the MSM seriously for the past two decades? I mean, besides themselves and fellow travelers, of course.

  • Thanks to a diversity of media options and the rise of new media, liberals have lost their choke-hold on the “message” and are now complaining like a flopping fish on the beach.

  • And they’re asking for govt. money to keep them going.

  • Well, why not? everyone else is asking.

Juden Raus!

Saturday, June 5, AD 2010

Helen Thomas, the Deaness of the Washington Press Corps, delivered the above charming sentiments at a Jewish Heritage Celebration at the White House on May 27.  Thomas has been a left wing loon forever, and has always been hostile to Israel, but here she let the mask slip to reveal the bigot within.  She later made a perfunctory apology for saying what she obviously believes with all her heart.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

20 Responses to Juden Raus!

  • Will there be a cry for her employer to fire her?

    If she were a conservative there would be hell to pay.

  • I thought a house landed on her.

  • T. Shaw,

    You shouldn’t drag down witches like that. It’s an insult to witches everywhere.

  • I apologize.

    Silver lining: She’s an appropriate “spokes-model” for the antisemites masquerading as peace and justice liberals.

  • If Helen Thomas was, say, a woman of 40, I’d blame such a ridiculous statement on ignorance due to an appallingly poor educational system. But she was in her 20’s when WWII ended and they showed newsreels of the death camps in the movie theaters. No excuses.

    Thomas also seems unaware that a majority of Israeli Jews are not from “Germany and Poland” but are Sephardis from the Muslim world who were booted out of their old countries when the state of Israel was created.

    If she is so blatantly ignorant of such basic facts, I’d say it’s long past time she retired.

  • Tito, if she were a conservative, liberals would nod in silent agreement and conservatives would jump through hoops to explain why she didn’t really mean what she said.

  • “liberals would nod in silent agreement and conservatives would jump through hoops to explain why she didn’t really mean what she said”

    You are wrong about the latter part of that equation restrainedradical. Most conservatives are very supportive of Israel and have very little tolerance for anti-Semites.

  • Additionally the mind boggles at the concept of Helen Thomas as a conservative. One might as well attempt to consider Bill Clinton as a trappist monk.

  • conservatives would jump through hoops to explain why she didn’t really mean what she said.

    Pat Buchanan would like a word with you.

  • I probably should expand upon my comment just a tad, in case it flew over anyone’s head. Pat Buchanan is regularly excoriated by many conservatives for his anti-Israeli sentiments (and indeed defended by those sympathetic to his worldview).

  • I was thinking the same thing Paul

  • Re: Anti-Semite Helen Thomas
    She shows her complete lack of knowledge concerning Israel. Historically, the land belongs to them. She should read up on the kings of Israeland how the Jewish nation was formed.
    The UN gave back a portion of the Jewish land to its people in 1948. They have a legal right to be there. “Palestine” was a name given to the land of Israel by the Romans to humiliate the Jewish people. If she reads her history she will learn this.
    SHE SHOULD BE FIRED! She’s an insensitive bigot.

  • Though I think Buchanan was deemed an anti-semite by William F. Buckley a number of years ago in an articl at National Review. Good to know we all agree that Helen Thomas is in he same league.

    RR is right that here are anti-semites on the right. I think it is becoming much more fashionable on the left however. That’s not to say anyone who disagrees with Israel is. But there they are.

  • And as Buckley’s example shows, Conservatives kick them off the magazine. What will liberals do with Thomas?

  • Actually, IIRC Buckley was less definitive re Buchanan. What I believe he wrote was something to the effect that given all the evidence a reasonable man could conclude that Buchanan was anti-semitic. But that was enough for many conservatives, including those who otherwise agreed with many of PB’s positions.

  • I think the best quote from the article in question is where Buckley found it “impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism, whatever it was that drove him to say and do it: most probably, an iconoclastic temperament.”

    So he perhaps didn’t see him as an anti-Semite though he found what he wrote and said anti-Semitic.

  • Pingback: Hearst Stands Behind Anti-Semite Helen Thomas « The American Catholic
  • Fire the bigot. She has shamed herself, her profession and any organization she represents. Her apology rings hollow. She has revealed her true face, and no mealymouthed apology change that.

  • I’ll grant that PB is extremely non-interventionist. I don’t think that necessarily equates with anti-semitism. He seems to advocate cutting foreign aid pretty much across the board. But most journalists, left or right, are extremely afraid of making any criticism of Israel (or our aid to them) and incurring the A-S label.

  • I don’t really think Thomas and PB are in the same league. PB, although I suppose you could interpret his stance against aid to Israel as anti-semitic, I don’t recall him advocating for kicking the Jews out of Israel. He seems to be more of the opinion that it’s simply not our business (and not in our interest) to get involved. I would welcome any correction on that.

    Thomas seems to clearly advocate the US and the world being involved, and wanting the Jewish people out, with apparently very little interest in the various claims involved. I can’t really tell from the clip if she was referring only to the occupied territories, but the fact she said they should go back to Poland and Germany (rather than Israel proper) reveals that she considers Israel itself to be occupied territory.

George Weigel: Defend Religious Freedom

Tuesday, May 18, AD 2010

George Weigel wrote a timely article in National Review Online titled, Defending Religious Freedom in Full.

In it cites the extremist attacks in expressing our Catholic faith in the public square.

The forms of these attacks are egregious because they that attack us are also tearing apart the moral fabric of this nation.

Case in point is the Washington Post, and in my opinion they represent secular humanism, when it comes to natural law they painted those that hold to natural law as extremists:

This past October, in the heat of a political campaign, the nation’s political newspaper of record, the Washington Post, ran an editorial condemning what it termed the “extremist views” of a candidate for attorney general of Virginia who had suggested that the natural moral law was still a useful guide to public policy.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

Political Miscellania

Thursday, May 6, AD 2010

A round up of various political items of interest:

1. We lead off with the above video.  Contessa Brewer, MSNBC’s representative journalist for the empty-headed bimbo demographic, is just so darned ticked off that the Time’s Square Would Be Bomber turned out to be a jihadist and not, presumably, some more politically correct villain.  This perhaps is of limited political significance, other than to demonstrate yet again that MSNBC should only be viewed for purposes of unintentional humor.

2. David Obey (D. WI.) announced his surprise retirement.  When Obey was first elected to Congress in 1968 I was 11 years old.  Needless to say, it is long past time for him to be moving on to other things after 42 years, but his retirement this late in the campaign season indicates to me that this was not planned far in advance, and probably was due to the fact that he was facing a tough race and the prospect of the House flipping to the Republicans. This is bad news for the Democrats as it puts one more Democrat seat in play and is yet another sign of the political disaster awaiting the Democrats in November.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

19 Responses to Political Miscellania

  • I do not rejoice over Obey’s retirement because I have not yet seen who the most likely replacement is. LifeNews.com rates Obey as “pro-abortion” (http://www.lifenews.com/state5071.html), which may be accurate, but not terribly precise.

    An issue-by-issue analysis (http://www.ontheissues.org/House/David_Obey.htm) showed he had a mixed voting record on the issues of abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Far from perfect, but for me, it’s important that his replacement be better on the issue of abortion and a large number of pro-life issue. The pro-life voters in that district need to step up early and make sure that at least one candidate on the ballot in the general election will be a pro-life voice in the House.

  • Go Colonel West!

    Does this mean I can be a patriot without being a racist now, if I like this guy? Is that acceptable? Or is he a self-hating black, so if I like him, that means I hate blacks?

    I need a thought cop to tell me what to think! Preferably someone who does the freshman initiation at the dorms of the state universities.

  • The likely Republican candidate for Obey’s seat is Sean Duffy, a pro-life Catholic.

  • The seat is likely safe for the dems. I’m not sure how much Duffy’s MTV celebrity will help him, because the district trends older. The bigger disadvantage is that he is an unknown in Wausau, Stevens Point, and Wisconsin Rapids, cities in counties that make up 170,000 of the district’s 650,000 people. Douglas County (Superior) is the other big county with 43,000, and I don’t think a Republican has every carried the county. Obama carried it 63/32.

  • “The likely Republican candidate for Obey’s seat is Sean Duffy, a pro-life Catholic.”

    A pro-life Catholic with a fine-looking pro-life Catholic wife.

    http://www.rachelcamposduffy.com/

    😉

  • She, I mean he has my vote.

  • I like Duffy. Since I’m a Chicago native I don’t see why the fact that I don’t live in Obey’s district should impair my abilty to vote for him. He has my votes.

  • Colonel West, has admitted to torture and says he’d do it again.

  • Colonel West, has admitted to torture and says he’d do it again.

    That strikes me as an example of how “torture” has come to be treated as a generic political bogeyman rather than a serious moral or humanitarian issue. There’s a wide gulf between West’s actions and the sort of things rightly condemned in regards to Guantanamo, etc. The NY Times piece of West actually gives a very balanced view of the incident:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/politics/27WEST.html?ex=1400990400&en=71d7b26fe2922d57&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=all

    I don’t know enough about West and his positions (much less his opponents in the primary) to know if I’d vote for him if I were in his district, but the increasing mis-use of torture as a political football only serves to cheapen a real humanitarian issue, probably making real torture more rather than less likely.

  • From the NY Times article:

    “one soldier punched him several times”
    “the translator kicked him in the shin and told him he needed to confess before Colonel West showed up to kill him”
    “Colonel West cocked his gun”
    “Soon, the soldiers began striking and shoving Mr. Hamoodi”
    “They were not instructed to do so by Colonel West but they were not stopped, either”
    “Eventually, the colonel and his soldiers moved Mr. Hamoodi outside, and threatened him with death. Colonel West said he fired a warning shot in the air and began counting down from five. He asked his soldiers to put Mr. Hamoodi’s head in a sand-filled barrel usually used for clearing weapons. At the end of his count, Colonel West fired a shot into the barrel, angling his gun away from the Iraqi’s head, he testified.”

    Oh, yes. Critics of Col. West deserve all the scorn we can heap on them.

  • The parts of the article that struck me were:

    In August, Colonel West learned from an intelligence specialist of a supposed plot to assassinate him, which would endanger the soldiers who traveled with him, too. The plot reportedly involved Mr. Hamoodi, a police officer who occasionally worked for the Americans. Although Mr. Hamoodi is a Shiite Muslim, and most attacks against Americans were carried out by Sunnis loyal to Saddam Hussein, some police officers do cooperate with the insurgents and several have been accused of attacking foreigners.

    Colonel West said he initially thought “the information was a joke.” But a week later several of his officers were ambushed when he was supposed to be traveling with them. A roadside bomb sheared off the back panel of a Humvee, and a firefight ensued. None of his men were seriously hurt, but Colonel West began taking the risk of an assassination seriously.

    Intent on foiling a reported plot to ambush him and his men, Colonel West, a battalion commander, made a calculated decision to intimidate the Iraqi officer with a show of force. An interrogation under way was going nowhere, Colonel West said in an interview, and he chose to take the matter into his own hands.

    “This could get ugly,” he told his soldiers. But, he said, he imposed limits: “This man will not be injured and he will not have to be repaired. There will be no blood and no breakage of bones.”

    Still, Colonel West wanted the Iraqi policeman, Yehiya Kadoori Hamoodi, to think “this was going to be the end” if he did not divulge what he knew. So Colonel West presided over what he considered a time-sensitive interrogation that grew steadily more abusive until he himself fired a pistol beside Mr. Hamoodi’s head.

    “There are rules and regulations, and there’s protecting your soldiers,” Colonel West said, sitting by a man-made waterway behind his family’s new home in a Florida subdivision. “I just felt I’d never have to write a letter of condolence home to a `rule and regulation.’ ”

    “The fact is, I made a choice, the choice had consequences and I accept that,” he continued.

    But, he added, the events of that hot, dusty night still disturb him: “I’m not some bully who goes around threatening men’s lives. Certain things we have to do in war are outside our character.”

    Mr. Hamoodi said he did not really blame the Americans for “arresting and torturing me.” Obviously, someone had informed on him, he said, and they had to act on the information they obtained. Still, he trembles now when he sees a Humvee and he no longer trusts or works with the Americans.

    Soldiers testified that they felt safer when Colonel West was in charge. The interpreter, who works for a private contractor, said that “the American soldiers were protected by the tribes” in the area because of Colonel West’s good relationship with the community, and that the situation became more dangerous and chaotic after he left.

    The military decided against court-martialing Colonel West. He was fined $5,000, and he submitted his resignation, which becomes effective this summer, when he will retire with full benefits.

    Colonel West said he had spent many months grappling with disorientation, wondering, “What is my purpose now, my reason for being?” Shortly after he arrived back in the United States, he got a lucrative job offer from a private contractor to return to Iraq, he said, but he was not interested. Instead, he decided to start again in the world of education.

    He is awaiting placement in a high school in Broward County and, he said, he prays that God will see to it that he gets a spot in one of the low-performing, predominantly black schools, where he can try to make a difference. Ever the striver, he plans to begin studying for a master’s in education so he can advance into administration “within five years.” he said. [the article is from 2004]

    I’m not prepared to say whether West was right in his actions, but if someone reads the whole article and simply comes out with a 2D portrait of “that guy is a torturer”, it strikes me that person is reading more through an ideological lens than a human one.

  • Contessa Brewer,

    Another self-loathing American.

    Thank goodness for the Internet because stuff like this would have never been shown for what it is, garbage.

  • It’s not political. I watched the video Don posted and I was honestly impressed so I googled him and found out he’s an unrepentant torturer. I too don’t know if he’s any better or worse than his opponent but that kind of killed the enthusiasm.

  • Colonel West first came to my notice when he sacrificed his career to save his men. I completely support what he did, and I admire his willingness to take his punishment without whining about it. Of course, a man can be a hero and lack any political skills. However, West has since demonstrated that he possesses such skills in spades. Oh and to short circuit the parade of horribles: no I would not have supported West shooting the suspected terrorist. However, frightening him, in order to foil a possible ambush, although against regulations, strikes me as a moral act.

  • Thanks for watching MSNBC (as penance, I presume), Don, so I don’t have to. I’ve never watched it, nor had I ever heard of Contessa Brewer before your post. Things are worse than I thought.

    Donald R. McClarey for SCOTUS.

  • “Donald R. McClarey for SCOTUS.”

    Thank you Cathleen, although I have as much chance of being nominated for SCOTUS as I do of being elected Miss America. Besides, I’ve thus far successfully resisted all efforts to get me into a black robe at the trial court level, since I enjoy simply being an attorney. (Also, as I remarked on one occasion, me being on the bench might be one of the seven signs of the Apocalypse!)

  • Maybe not a sign of the Apocalypse, but it sure would be fun to read your opinion of something like the “sweet mystery of life” passage.

  • Yeah j. christian, Kennedy has a bad case of Black Robitis. Too many people after they put on a black robe forget that, at best, they are smart attorneys and begin to consider themselves Platonic Guardians called upon to make decisions for everyone else.

    Of course the best comment in regard to this type of judicial buffoonery was made by Scalia in his magnificent dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the decision which reaffirmed Roe:

    “What makes all this relevant to the bothersome application of “political pressure” against the Court are the twin facts that the American people love democracy and the American people are not fools. As long as this Court thought (and the people thought) that we Justices were doing essentially lawyers’ work up here–reading text and discerning our society’s traditional understanding of that text–the public pretty much left us alone. Texts and traditions are facts to study, not convictions to demonstrate about. But if in reality our process of constitutional adjudication consists primarily of making value judgments; if we can ignore a long and clear tradition clarifying an ambiguous text, as we did, for example, five days ago in declaring unconstitutional invocations and benedictions at public high school graduation ceremonies, Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. ___ (1992); if, as I say, our pronouncement of constitutional law rests primarily on value judgments, then a free and intelligent people’s attitude towards us can be expected to be (ought to be) quite different. The people know that their value judgments are quite as good as those taught in any law school–maybe better. If, indeed, the “liberties” protected by the Constitution are, as the Court says, undefined and unbounded, then the people should demonstrate, to protest that we do not implement their values instead of ours. Not only that, but confirmation hearings for new Justices should deteriorate into question and answer sessions in which Senators go through a list of their constituents’ most favored and most disfavored alleged constitutional rights, and seek the nominee’s commitment to support or oppose them. Value judgments, after all, should be voted on, not dictated; and if our Constitution has somehow accidently committed them to the Supreme Court, at least we can have a sort of plebiscite each time a new nominee to that body is put forward. Justice Blackmun

    not only regards this prospect with equanimity, he solicits it, ante, at 22-23.

    * * *

    There is a poignant aspect to today’s opinion. Its length, and what might be called its epic tone, suggest that its authors believe they are bringing to an end a troublesome era in the history of our Nation and of our Court. “It is the dimension” of authority, they say, to “cal[l] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.” Ante, at 24.

    There comes vividly to mind a portrait by Emanuel Leutze that hangs in the Harvard Law School: Roger Brooke Taney, painted in 1859, the 82d year of his life, the 24th of his Chief Justiceship, the second after his opinion in Dred Scott. He is all in black, sitting in a shadowed red armchair, left hand resting upon a pad of paper in his lap, right hand hanging limply, almost lifelessly, beside the inner arm of the chair. He sits facing the viewer, and staring straight out. There seems to be on his face, and in his deep set eyes, an expression of profound sadness and disillusionment. Perhaps he always looked that way, even when dwelling upon the happiest of thoughts. But those of us who know how the lustre of his great Chief Justiceship came to be eclipsed by Dred Scott cannot help believing that he had that case–its already apparent consequences for the Court, and its soon to be played out consequences for the Nation–burning on his mind. I expect that two years earlier he, too, had thought himself “call[ing] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.”

    It is no more realistic for us in this case, than it was for him in that, to think that an issue of the sort they both involved–an issue involving life and death, freedom and subjugation–can be “speedily and finally settled” by the Supreme Court, as President James Buchanan in hisinaugural address said the issue of slavery in the territories would be. See Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 126 (1989). Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.

    We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.”

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZX4.html

  • I should have said thanks earlier to Blackadder for the information he provided.

Illegal Aliens Boycott Arizona

Sunday, May 2, AD 2010

The State of Arizona is only enforcing what is already law at the federal level.  That being said and myself being the son of a legal immigrant from the nation of Mexico, the May Day protests and the highly unbalanced news reporting from the mainstream media have purposely distorted the legislation that has been passed in Arizona.

Having attended college and lived in Arizona for almost ten years I know for a fact that there are many good people living there and I am disappointed in how unfairly and untruthful they have been portrayed by the mainstream media.

The only other thing I want to say is that Roger Cardinal Mahony’s reprehensible choice of words to characterize the law that had been passed in Arizona is unbecoming of an archbishop.

_._

Related posts on this issue here at The American Catholic:

Illegal Immigration:  A Winning Issue for Democrats?

Catholic Worker View of NAFTA/Immigration

Mexifornia:  A State of Becoming

Arizona, Immigration, and Moral Panic

Arizonas New Immigration Law

Somewhat related posts on this issue here at The American Catholic:

British Survey on Foreigners in the United Kingdom

http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/04/23/arizonas-new-immigration-law/
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

38 Responses to Illegal Aliens Boycott Arizona

  • Well, if the mainstream media is painting the Arizona populace as a cesspool of evil people then surely the media is wrong. But to argue that the people of Arizona are direly wrong about this law (when there’s a poll of 70% or so supporting then), then it is a qutie honest disagreement on strategy. I don’t think it’s helpful necessarily to focus on the most extreme opinions coming from one side or the other because the discourse gets stuck on he-said, she-said, but-he-said-something-even-more-vile melodramatic soap opera nonsense and it does nothing to solve the problem.

  • Most people in America aren’t against immigration; they’re just against illegal immigration. For example, like most of our ancestors, my mother’s parents were immigrants. They came through Ellis Island and followed the various legal steps required in order to establish themselves as true citizens of this country. The immigrants crossing the Mexican border, however, have absolutely no interest in following these legal protocols. Once they cross the border, they change their names and/or purchase social security numbers in an effort to conceal their true identities from the law. It is not uncommon for an illegal immigrant to purchase not one, but two or more social security numbers, just in case one is flagged. I have witnessed this crime with my own eyes. (One day, a supposedly legal immigrant was asked to give their social security card to a receptionist for a job application and an interview. When the receptionist happened to ask to see the card a second time, the immigrant mistakenly handed over a different social security card with the same name on it, but with a completely different set of numbers…)

    Don’t get me wrong: I’m not against Hispanics. I have many Hispanic friends, but they either have green cards to work in the United States or have become legal citizens. They decided to follow the rule of law and work within the boundaries of our legal system. Unfortunately, many immigrants do not, and it those particular individuals that we are most concerned about.

    Now it seems that those who sympathize with illegal immigrants wish to hijack the discussion of reform by attacking the law recently imposed by the State of Arizona through protests and boycotts; a state mind you, that has been besieged with crime, drugs and an ever-increasing population of illegal immigrants. Don’t allow them this option. Speak out and take action. This is your country… fight for it.

    In closing, I consider myself to be a bleeding-heart liberal: a Democrat. My ancestor, Roger Williams – one of our founding fathers, was one too; regarding the acceptance of different nationalities, cultures and religions as the vitality and lifeblood of any country. Nevertheless, I think that he would agree with me; that immigrants wishing to become legal citizens have not only the obligation, but the civil and legal responsibility to follow the rules of law established by any country in which they wish to become authentic citizens, just as our ancestors – both yours and mine – struggled so arduously and righteously to achieve.

  • “The only other thing I want to say is that Roger Cardinal Mahony’s reprehensible choice of words to characterize the law that had been passed in Arizona is unbecoming of an archbishop.”

    That’s an understatement.

  • There is a reason why bishops have near dictatorial powers in their dioceses. They are meant “to know their sheep”. Cardinal Mahony has lost control of his flock. Instead of paying attention to the flood of immorality which rises from his archdiocesis, had he not better address that? Or is he fearful of losing popularity?

    From my own Irish background, I believe he is one of the fast fading [laus Deo] Irish clerics who live in the previous century. Time to retire to a monastery and contemplate the last ends.

    [Footnote: there is nothing new in the Arizona immigration law. It merely copies the U.S. law].

  • “Unbecoming of an archbishop”??? If the Holy Father had said the same thing, I suppose it would have been unbecoming of a pope too. Yet you and your “real Catholics” never fail to criticize the clergy for mincing words about those social ills of which you disapprove. It strikes me that jumping on a prince of the Church for defending Catholic teaching, even if his words sound harsh to the “good people” you know in Arizona, is unbecoming of a Catholic blogger.

  • Calling the people who support the legislation in Arizona Nazis and Communists is completely in line with Cardinal Mahoney’s adherence to the Magisterium. The only problem is that the Magisterium he adheres to is that of the New York Times.

  • Prince of the Church?

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    ha!

  • while I don’t find comparisons to totalitarian regimes prudent or useful I agree with his sentiment. this bill is over authoritarian and is unjust. I’m pretty sure if you asked people in general what they thought about cops checikng peoples papers and separating families they would say it was wrong. no idea why that changes when it’s an immigrant getting checked-though I suspect that many (not accusing anyone here mind you) do so out of racist, natvisit, and/or anti-catholic predjudices

  • I have this quaint idea Michael that the immigration laws of our country should be followed and enforced. I also think Mahoney is a disgrace and has been one for years. I don’t think either of those positions is authoritarian, racist, nativist or anti-Catholic.

  • I think it’s possible to simultaneously hold:

    – US immigration laws should be enforced (even if one doesn’t like their current quotas).
    – This particular law is an unwise and excessive way of trying to attempt that.
    – Mahony’s way of expressing his dislike for the law was foolish and irresponsible (not to mention unpastoral) in the extreme.
    – Mahony deserves a modicum of respect because of his office.
    – Mahony has been pretty at best unhelpful at and worst a disaster for both his own diocese and the Church in the US as a whole.

  • I’m with Don on this.

    This law, which was just clarified again by the AZ legislature, only mandates that police investigate immigration status in the course of “lawful contact”, investigating a crime. It requires police to do the job that the federal government has failed to do.

    It doesn’t mandate or create any sweeping new powers, and it doesn’t violate anyone’s “civil rights”, which in this day and age has come to mean “my right to never be questioned by the police about anything I do, ever.”

    It’s nothing but a politically-loaded catch phrase that partisans of the left use to mask their true belief, which is this: that national borders are inherently unjust, that nations and states have no inherent right to exist, and that the immigration law we do have should not be enforced in order to more quickly and speedily bring about their demise.

    I know because I was in the communist movement. I know because I argued this myself, I believed it, and I promoted the idea through propaganda and agitation. It was the official position of my party and every other party of the far left. Not only should the law not be enforced, “workers” (that is, leftists) should do all in their power to make illegal immigration safer, more efficient, and more permanent, and conspire to break the law or at least test its limits to the extreme.

    This law is not unwise. This law is not unjust. This law is a rational response to a federal failure and a wave of lethal violence from south of the border. Mexico has become a narco-terror state in many regions along the border. On our side we must be empowered to protect lives, liberty and property from a ruthless enemy.

    If the feds actually were doing their damned jobs, would those of you who don’t like this law be claiming that federal immigration law was unjust? If so, then just say it. Admit that you don’t want there to be immigration laws. Because saying you want a level of government to enforce them that has consistently failed to enforce them is tantamount to saying that you don’t want them enforced.

  • Most people in America aren’t against immigration; they’re just against illegal immigration.

    If your problem with something is that it is illegal, then you should favor making it legal.

    For example, like most of our ancestors, my mother’s parents were immigrants. They came through Ellis Island and followed the various legal steps required in order to establish themselves as true citizens of this country.

    Unless your mother’s parents were war refugees, the fact they came through Ellis Island suggests that they came to the country back when we had open immigration. If today’s law were in place back then your mom’s parents likely wouldn’t have been able to (legally) come here.

  • I have this quaint idea Michael that the immigration laws of our country should be followed and enforced.

    Would you say the same for ObamaCare?

  • Btw, a common refrain in the immigration debate is that the federal government isn’t enforcing the immigration laws. I’m not quite sure what this means. I was talking with an ICE agent this weekend, and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t sit around all day surfing the web and watching Oprah. I take it that the assumption the federal government isn’t enforcing the law is based primarily on the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in this country, but by that logic the government isn’t enforcing the laws against drug dealing and murder either.

  • I concur (oddly?) with DC and BA.

  • don: I stated I was not accusing anyone here of that. people like tancredo? absolutely.

    Joe: if it makes you feel better the Feds are doing a better job of stopping illegal immigration than other things. if you don’t believe me come on down to louisiana where we wish the Feds were doing as well ad they’ve done on the borders

  • I don’t know why Arizonans would want to protect their citizens from Mexican drug cartel violence, safeguard the public treasury, or prevent the strain on their already choked social services. I mean, not doing that has done wonders for LA! That movie, American Me, I want to recreate that in my city. Yes!

    I have no idea why they’d want to enforce the laws that have been on the books since the USA formed or why they’d be mad at the Feds for not doing their jobs of securing our borders. Arizonans are racists, red-neck, bigoted, right-wing conspiracists for wanting to protect the quality of life of LEGAL immigrants already living here. What’s up with that? They should enjoy picking up the 2 million tons of trash the illegals leave strewn across our lands as they make their way north because they always have beautiful, sunny skies.

    Did you know that asking for someone’s citzenship papers is the equivalent of slaughtering 7 million Jews in Nazi Germany. If you didn’t, then you’re not reading the main-stream, unbiased, good-intentioned media. Get with the program, Comrades! Read the NY Times, the LA Times or the Washington Post, or any newspaper that feeds off of them. It will really educate you and keep you from losing your public education indoctrination.

    Why not let the entire world into this country, starting with Haiti, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Yemen — oh, and don’t forget a few “mainstream” Castro-loving Cubans. I’m sure the freedom-loving Cubans already living in Miami who hate Castro won’t mind. Let’s blow taxpayers’ money overseas by sending travel vouchers to the Middle East so they can fly to Mexico and come across the border. Can’t we all just get along? If we just sat down and negotiated with them, all war, poverty and disease would end and Obama could save us all.

    After their amnesty, they’ll vote Democrat in order to keep the taxpayer dollars flowing freely and keep Democrats in power. What’s so wrong about that? That stuff going on in Greece — riots, protest. Yeah, I like that. Let’s get some of that. After all, we’re no longer a Republic. We’re a dictatorship. Just ask the folks who passed healthcare with the Slaughter House Rules, instead of abiding by the will of the people. If you can’t afford health insurance, you should be jailed or fined by IRS agents, so there will be no room for locking up illegal aliens. Obama is going to help this country like Chairman Mao helped China take the Great Leap Forward, or how Stalin helped unite the Russians. CHANGE, TRANSFORM. I really love it.

    All I ask is that you don’t complain as your paychecks get smaller and smaller. After all, someone has to pay for all those bells and whistles, and bells and whistles, and bells and whistles, etc. Well, you get the idea. It might as well be you. We know from history that the rich ALWAYS get soaked, so none of it will effect your pocketbook. Right? I mean, look how many millionaires are now living in boxes by the river. Plus, the more money you rob from rich people and give to poor people, the more jobs that are created. Right, Nancy Pelosi? It looks like rain today — maybe too much. I hope the government is doing something about that. Maybe a rain tax is needed.

  • Michael,

    Why should what happens in Louisiana have anything to do with the situation in AZ? The feds are not doing a good job in the Southwest. That’s why AZ acted. This was not arbitrary.

    So, no, the idea that some other state might benefit more from federal help doesn’t make me “feel better”, and I don’t know why it should. Though technically I don’t live in AZ, my entire family on my mother’s side does. So that’s what I care about.

  • “I’m not quite sure what this means.”

    You know exactly what it means – you just like making strawmen out of opposing arguments.

  • I, as Joe, know the issues and problems in Arizona.

    What Arizona is doing is lawful, just, and moral.

    How many are portraying Arizona as is disgusting.

    Thank goodness for democracy.

    Otherwise, things will get really ugly.

  • Don: I have this quaint idea Michael that the immigration laws of our country should be followed and enforced.

    BA: Would you say the same for ObamaCare?

    BA, you just demonstrated in this sentence that you are not in the least interested in having an honest debate or discussion on this issue.

  • “’Unbecoming of an archbishop’??? If the Holy Father had said the same thing, I suppose it would have been unbecoming of a pope too.”-ron chandonia

    Yes, Ron, calumny would be unbecoming of a pope too. Praise Jesus that our pope is able to resist such.

    Pray for our bishops.

  • “I have this quaint idea Michael that the immigration laws of our country should be followed and enforced.”

    “Would you say the same for ObamaCare?”

    I have called for the repeal of ObamaCare BA since I regard it as very bad public policy. I support immigration laws which I view as good public policy. The quotas for each foreign nation should be determined by Congress and not by coyotes bringing illegals across our southern border. I believe all nations on Earth have immigration laws and I find the hysteria surrounding the people of Arizona taking action to actually enforce ours rather comic.

  • If today’s law were in place back then your mom’s parents likely wouldn’t have been able to (legally) come here.

    If I am not mistaken, the law allows 800,000 immigrants to enter the country every year, with an additional increment of refugees whose number varies according to circumstance. The principal constraint for the aspirant immigrant are the preference categories which favor the relatives of extant immigrants.

  • Joe,

    Actually I’m serious. The federal government deports about a million illegal immigrants a year; if you don’t think that’s enforcing the law, then you should at least say what you would consider enforcement.

    I suspect that the enforcement issue is a red herring. People favor enforcing laws they like; if it is a law they don’t like they are fine with it not being enforced. Thus, Don has the quaint notion that immigration laws should be enforced, but as he himself admits this is because he thinks our immigration laws are good policy. Arizona in particular has attempted to “nullify” federal law on a number of subjects (including, ironically, the REAL ID Act).

  • “Thus, Don has the quaint notion that immigration laws should be enforced, but as he himself admits this is because he thinks our immigration laws are good policy.”

    Actually BA I believe virtually all laws should be enforced because to do otherwise is a short route to chaos. On this point I agree with Saint Thomas More as I elaborated in this post below:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/03/29/give-the-devil-benefit-of-law/

    My precise position as to obeying the law as set forth in that post: “People should act to change bad laws. If a law so seriously compromises a person’s conscience that obeying it would appear to that person to be active complicity in evil than disobedience of the law, with the willingness to be punished for the disobedience, may be called for by that individual. Otherwise, even bad or foolish laws should be obeyed until they can be changed, short of “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism” which justifies a rising in revolt by a people. To act otherwise is to reduce the law to mere opinion and to cause our civil society to descend to the rule of the strongest or the loudest.”

  • Joe: you missed the point. I was trying to make a point about federal incompetence.

    to everyone else: I’m not interested in these “we here understand the problem as it really is” arguments. at best those defend the ends of this bill-but that’s not the bills only problem. more important is the means this bill entails-the documentation part. it’s not just.

    unfortunately I think all this is doing is making sure pro-life catholic Hispanics flee to the welcoming arms of the democrats.

  • Donald,

    So you believe virtually all laws should be enforced, but not ObamaCare? Or do you think that ObamaCare should be enforced too (including, say, the individual mandate)?

    Incidentally, I don’t think the passage from Bolt’s play really has much to do with whether laws should be enforced. More is talking about the importance of the legal protections against arbitrary arrest and punishment that were present in English law. He wasn’t saying that you have to enforce every statute to its full extent, and if you were to change the law to remove the legal protections More’s talking about then that would be equally problematic.

  • You will look long and hard on this blog BA without finding a sentence stated by me that ObamaCare should not be enforced. My focus has been on legal challenges to the law, amendments, and the enactment of state laws to attack ObamaCare. All within the realm of the law, and in the realm of attempts to change the law through political victory. Your position BA appears to be that we have no duty to obey laws that we disagree with. That is not my position and I am certain that it was not the position of Saint Thomas More.

  • Don nailed it as usual, and I say that as one who disagrees with Don (I think) on the AZ legislation. I oppose the legislation for several prudential reasons, but find the open borders arguments equally problematic. The failure of the federal government to secure borders is scandalous and unacceptable. As Tom Friedman once put it (not sure if this is a blind squirrel or stopped clock priciple here), we need a tall fence and wide gate.

  • Your position BA appears to be that we have no duty to obey laws that we disagree with.

    No, my position would be that if a law is a bad law, it probably shouldn’t be expanded.

    I apologizes for my error regarding your position on enforcing ObamaCare. There are, however, lots of people who don’t want to see the law enforced, including many of the people responsible for and supportive of the Arizona law.

  • BA,

    You’re make assumptions not based in fact. People opposed to Obamacare did not want the law enacted. They also want the law repealed. No one here has said leave the crappy law on the books and disobey it or that the various bureaucracies it creates should sit on their hands and not do their job. No, folks with an understanding of human nature, economics, and the health care system are opposed to Obamacare because it will make things worse for most folks and greatly increase government involvement in people’s lives.

    For those saying that Cardinal Mahony should not be criticized for his inane and nonsensical comments I can only assume you did not bother clicking the link and reading his inaccurate assessment of what Arizona passed. Consider this comment of his:

    “I can’t imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation.

    “Are children supposed to call 911 because one parent does not have proper papers?”

    Please show me where in the Arizona law it addresses something as stupid as the idea of requiring children to turn in their parent. That is as silly as being against laws against hardcore drugs because if a child saw their parent shooting up horse they might feel obliged to tell on mommy or daddy. Does the archbishop not have a staff to assist him with his speeches so he would not seem foolish?

    I could respect his position if he would just say “Hey, countries should not have any borders. We are all children of God and should not let artificial borders separate us.” However, he is throwing inaccurate allegation out about the Arizona law instead.

  • I urge everyone who is outraged by Cardinal Mahony’s calumnious remarks as I am to contact the media relations office for the L.A. Archdiocese at:

    213 637 7215 or mediarelations@la-archdiocese.org.

  • Amazing. Illegal aliens are to be classified as criminals… What does “illegal” mean again? — I’m a bit confused here.

  • “I urge everyone who is outraged by Cardinal Mahony’s calumnious remarks as I am to contact the media relations office for the L.A.”

    I gave up on Cardinal Mahony year’s ago. You only have to look at his hideous “cathedral” with its pagan-like altar, his rebellions against the Pope and his weird masses to know that his “Catholicism” is whatever he decides he wants it to be for that particular week. It’s best to just pray for his soul and hope for a Pope who will actually rein him in.

    So am I surprised at what he says about Arizona’s new immigration law. No, it just confirms what I already knew about him.

  • BA will say anything to get under your skin. Best to learn that now.

    “The federal government deports about a million illegal immigrants a year; if you don’t think that’s enforcing the law, then you should at least say what you would consider enforcement.”

    There isn’t enough enforcement. There aren’t enough agents. There aren’t enough funds. And the advanced, military-style tactics of the cartels and the gangs call for higher levels of training and enforcement. The federal government has not taken the problem as seriously as it should. Mexico is destabilizing, there is a violent civil war being fought right on our border. A few more INS agents aren’t going to cut it at this point. This is a national security issue, one far more valid than Afghanistan I might add.

    As Gov. Brewer pointed out, the costs of housing foreign nationals (which ought to be done or at least paid for by the federal government) costs the state 150 million each year. Thats small beans at the federal level but these are considerably larger sums at the state level.

    As for Obamacare…

    If people want to resist Obamacare, what do I care? You really think the principle here is that laws should be enforced because they’re laws?

    I don’t worship the law, I’m not a lawyer. The fundamental right to self-preservation against violent enemies is a natural right that needs no validation or authorization from any government. If human laws support it, good. If they don’t, to hell with them. No law and no constitution is a suicide pact.

    So, I’m not going to be squeezed into your rhetorical box. This isn’t about the law. It is about what is right and wrong, about survival and self-preservation. If you want to oppose that, you’re welcome to try and see how far you get.

  • In response to you e-mail…….I am among the 70% plus of Arizonans who approve of the Arizona Illegal Immigration Bill!
    Too many people have not read the Bill so how can they be against it when they do not know what’s in it?
    Too many people rather believe in heresy than in facts! The American main media is a classic example.
    Here in Tucson, only one percent of the protesters when asked were register voter, the rest were high school kids (from Tucson High School) and illegals on the day the Governor signed the Bill. NO LIE!

    Like California, Arizona is bleeding from the financial burden that illegals have created in this state. Crime committed by illegals in Arizona is another burden for our State law enforcement agencies.

    When someone walks into a Chase Bank to open an account, the Customer Representative will ask for proper identification. If that someone does not show the proper identification that someone will be ask if he or she is an American citizen. If not, a different form has to be fill out.

    When someone is stop for a traffic violation, is in a traffic accident, acting suspicious, or commits a crime, the police officer will ask for proper identification.
    If that someone does not show the proper identification, that someone will be ask if he or she is an American citizen. If not, that someone will be question further to determine his or her status in this country. It’s not profiling!

    My father arrived in this country from Mexico at the age of six. For seventy-four years he carried with him a U.S. working permit (Green Card). He never complained of profiling! Whenever someone asked him if he was American citizen, he would proudly say no

  • Pingback: Arizona Strikes Back! Ready to Cut Power to L.A. « The American Catholic

Competing Magisteriums

Thursday, April 29, AD 2010

I give an incredulous salute to the liberal Commonweal for publishing a magnificent column by Kenneth Woodward where he discusses the New York Times Magisterium:

No question, the Times’s worldview is secularist and secularizing, and as such it rivals the Catholic worldview. But that is not unusual with newspapers. What makes the Times unique—and what any Catholic bishop ought to understand—is that it is not just the nation’s self-appointed newspaper of record. It is, to paraphrase Chesterton, an institution with the soul of a church. And the church it most resembles in size, organization, internal culture, and international reach is the Roman Catholic Church.

Like the Church of Rome, the Times is a global organization. Even in these reduced economic times, the newspaper’s international network of news bureaus rivals the Vatican’s diplomatic corps. The difference is that Times bureau chiefs are better paid and, in most capitals, more influential. A report from a papal nuncio ends up in a Vatican dossier, but a report from a Times correspondent is published around the world, often with immediate repercussions. With the advent of the Internet, stories from the Times can become other outlets’ news in an ever-ramifying process of global cycling and recycling. That, of course, is exactly what happened with the Times piece on Fr. Murphy, the deceased Wisconsin child molester. The pope speaks twice a year urbi et orbi (to the city and to the world), but the Times does that every day.

Again like the Church of Rome, the Times exercises a powerful magisterium or teaching authority through its editorial board. There is no issue, local or global, on which these (usually anonymous) writers do not pronounce with a papal-like editorial “we.” Like the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the editorial board is there to defend received truth as well as advance the paper’s political, social, and cultural agendas. One can no more imagine a Times editorial opposing any form of abortion—to take just one of that magisterium’s articles of faith—than imagine a papal encyclical in favor.

The Times, of course, does not claim to speak infallibly in its judgments on current events. (Neither does the pope.) But to the truly orthodox believers in the Times, its editorials carry the burden of liberal holy writ. As the paper’s first and most acute public editor, Daniel Okrent, once put it, the editorial page is “so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right.” Okrent’s now famous column was published in 2004 under the headline “Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?” and I will cite Okrent more than once because he, too, reached repeatedly for religious metaphors to describe the ambient culture of the paper.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

2 Responses to Competing Magisteriums

  • That’s a solid and well balanced piece.

    Which maybe explains why the majority of comments are incredibly negative over at Commonweal.

  • I can understand the negative responses of Commonweal readers. I am taking a course with my local diocese. Naturally 99% of what is taught is a variant of liberal (Enlightenmnet) Protestantism. Social justice for this course IS the Democratic platform.
    The teachers have been using the clergy abuse scandal to undermine the hierarchy. This to undermine official Church teaching. This scandal has been a useful club for liberals – of Enlightenment and American varieties.

A Second Victimization

Tuesday, April 20, AD 2010

Nicholas D. Kristof wrote another New York Times editorial condemning the Church. It’s not worth reading; it’s the same stuff about the Vatican is not the Church, but the real Church are the ones helping the needy (i.e. the ones doing what Kristof likes-except for obviously Mother Teresa b/c she didn’t like contraception) and the Church needs to expand its ideas on women and contraception in order to avoid the sex abuse crisis. For example

That story comes to mind as the Vatican wrestles with the consequences of a patriarchal premodern mind-set: scandal, cover-up and the clumsiest self-defense since Watergate. That’s what happens with old boys’ clubs

That’s not interesting. We’ve heard it before. What is interesting is his blog. He himself comments on the article.

One question that I’m still puzzling over is this: how much difference would it make if the Vatican did admit women as deacons, or ordain them? It’s certainly true that women can be abusers as well as men. The painful report of the Irish Commission of Inquiry last year made that clear, with accounts of nuns brutally mistreating children and in some cases raping them. Likewise, ordination of women is no guarantee of popular support: mainline Christian denominations have been ordaining women, and still losing ground to more conservative Evangelical denominations.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

9 Responses to A Second Victimization

  • Too bad he never met a Catholic who could’ve converted him.

  • Just a slight correction: Kristoff is actually an outspoken opponent of abortion, which actually makes the junk he peddled in his column all the more disappointing.

  • I don’t see what’s so objectionable about the portion you quoted. He didn’t say any of the stuff you attribute to him unless you decide to read only every other word of every other sentence.

  • restrainedradical:

    What’s objectionable is that he knows that he wants to see happen will do very little to actually make children safer-yet continues to connect it to the sex abuse scandal and admits it by saying that he knows that women can be abusers as well.

  • He admits no such thing. You inferred it, improperly. Women can be abusers and the presence of women can make children safer.

  • What is objectionable is that he wants the church to okay gravely immoral contraception and that the Church is an institution founded by men.

    My experience outside of the church ie public school system and many different Protestant denominations is that the presence of women do not make men more moral. Admitting women to ministry in Protestent cirles leads quickly to heresy.

  • restrainedradical:

    I’m pretty sure you didn’t read the column but just the quoted portion (or every other word of the quoted portion…not sure which you took the time to read). This is what he said:

    “That old boys’ club in the Vatican became as self-absorbed as other old boys’ clubs, like Lehman Brothers, with similar results. And that is the reason the Vatican is floundering today.”

    Now compare

    “One question that I’m still puzzling over is this: how much difference would it make if the Vatican did admit women as deacons, or ordain them? It’s certainly true that women can be abusers as well as men. The painful report of the Irish Commission of Inquiry last year made that clear, with accounts of nuns brutally mistreating children and in some cases raping them.”

    So we went from “Boys club is the reason” to “I’m puzzling whether it would make much of a difference.” It is proper to infer that he is admitting that the thesis advancing by his column is not true; that at the very best his thesis would be “Admitting women would help decrease the liklihood of this problem.” That’s a big difference to admit/acknowledge.

    So he’s already admitted that he doesn’t believe in the thesis he advanced, that he failed to mention in his column that women are also abusers and he failed to admit that admitting women had not helped make other denominations relevant (which is not what the column suggests).

    He then puts in the throw-away paragraph. He makes 3 assertions: it would attract more priests (which is not relevant to the crisis), that for mystical reasons women would magically produce democracy and transparency, and that women could change the Church’s teaching on contraception. it is not till the very last two words of the paragraph that he remembers what the column is about and adds “and child abuse,” suggesting that women are more against child abuse then men (which also is given no support).

    He’s not looking to child abuse. All of the goods he discusses are irrelevant or marginally connected to the issue. Combined with the doubts and stats he admitted in the first paragraph I quote, the inference is proper. He knows his connection isn’t strong but he wants to promote contraception & women priests so he does so anyway, taking advantage of the emotional reaction to child abuse in a way that he ought to apologize for.

  • Working on the issue-spotting, I see, Michael. ;-).

    The instrumentalization of abuse victims to serve as Exhibit A in the argument why the public schools, excuse me, Catholic Church needs to be radically redesigned in the author’s image, is one of the more unsavory aspects of the coverage of the scandals. I think this is an error often made in good faith; people are not that good at sorting out the differences in their sincerely held beliefs. Nevertheless, the fallacy on display is often:

    1)Abuse is bad,
    2)I think these Church teachings are bad,
    3)The correlation of bad things happening in an institution with bad teachings implies causation (regardless of what the evidence shows)

    And, of course, a similar thing happens to defenders of the Church, where the syllogism often runs:

    1) The Church is good;
    2) The liberal media is bad;
    3) Ergo, the bad liberal media is wrong when it says bad things about the good Church.

    Throw people on each side reasoning in this manner, and truth quickly becomes a casualty. I think your post is perceptive insofar as it captures the mask slipping a bit as Kristof questions the assertions he has casually made in arguing for his preferred reforms. At the same time, I am not sure this is morally blameworthy as much as it is a mental blindspot. People really aren’t that good at thinking rationally; at least not for long and not on that many topics. I usually use MSNBC and Fox News as my primary examples of that, which, for some reason, some people find only half-persuasive.

  • It might be more persuasive if you used CBS, NBC, ABC, NY Times, WAPO, CNN and MSNBC as opposed to Fox. 😉

If You Repeat a Lie a Thousand Times…

Friday, April 9, AD 2010

Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul-Minneapolis has defended Pope Benedict in his column in the archdiocesan weekly newspaper.

In reporting on the column, the Associated Press closed their story with this:

Critics of the church’s handling of abuse cases are citing Benedict’s tenure as head of the Vatican office charged with disciplining clergy. The office halted a mid-1990s investigation into a Wisconsin priest accused of molesting some 200 deaf boys.

Dear Associated Press: the CDF did not stop the investigation. If you’d actually do some journalism you’d know that.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

5 Responses to If You Repeat a Lie a Thousand Times…

  • The communists succeeded in branding His Holiness Pius XII as a virtual agent of Hitler because of his alleged silence in the face of Nazi atrocities. The facts suggest otherwise, but they have been buried over time, and the mud sticks. Now, secularists (and others, including some in the Church herself) are trying to do the same to His Holiness Benedict XVI with regard to the priest sex scandal. The facts tend to exonerate him, but I fear the mud will stick. It will take a persistent and forceful defense if there is to be any hope for his legacy.

  • So, did you try to contact MPR to address their error?

  • I tried to contact the AP, but there’s no writer in that or other bylines, so I have little idea who to reach. And given that it’s been picked up elsewhere, merely trying to communicate with MPR seemed pointless.

  • You ask,

    “If they [AP] can botch this story this poorly, how can I trust their reporting on other issues?”

    So far as I can see, you can’t.

    All you can do is trace the facts about any given story that AP presents in a broad-brush kind of way, compare those to the facts presented from other sources, find the commonalities, then go seeking criticism from bloggers who specialize in the relevant topics to get a sense of which commonly-reported facts are open to debate or alternative interpretation, and which are thought by the bloggers to be missing.

    Rinse, repeat, for several days.

    Then you ruminate, allowing that picture simmer and stew until you come to some kind of conclusions about what actually happened.

    That’s how one “checks the news” these days. AP is just mono-sourced data. If you want information, even minimalist “satisficing” (let alone detailed knowledge) will require individual collation of data from multiple inputs.

    The darkly amusing thing to ponder is this: Were the MSM always this bad, and we just didn’t have enough sources of alternative opinion to know about it? Or has the failure of intellectual and moral standards brought us gradually to this point from some earlier state of being in which media organs were moderately trustworthy?

  • “Were the MSM always this bad, and we just didn’t have enough sources of alternative opinion to know about it? Or has the failure of intellectual and moral standards brought us gradually to this point from some earlier state of being in which media organs were moderately trustworthy?”

    Bad reporting there has ever been, and the access of the internet to multiple sources displays such reporting in bold relief. However, I doubt if there has been a time before when the ink stained wretches were so ideologically committed in one direction and so uncaring about their professionalism.

This is Unconscionable.

Wednesday, March 31, AD 2010

From the Anchoress:

MSNBC ran a headline on their website:

“Pope Describes Touching Boys: I Went Too Far.”

NBC has apologized (the linked story had absolutely nothing to do with the headline, or with the pope, for that matter).

Really? Will heads roll, too? They should, but I doubt they will.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

24 Responses to This is Unconscionable.

  • I find it hard to believe that this was inadvertent. I suspect that it was simply an example of Catholic bashing bigotry so fashionable these days in certain circles and that was engaged in by whoever put together the headline.

  • Completely agreed, Donald… no way it was just an accident.

  • I think it’s easy to believe it’s inadvertent. It’s possible a different headline involving the Pope was considered, then they went with this headline but forgot to change out “Pope.” Or the Pope was on the writer’s mind, not the priest.

    Whoever writes those headlines probably does at least 5-10 a day. He’s going to screw up, and this is one of those times.

  • Anyone reading MSNBC the last few weeks knows this was no accident. There is no news organization around more virulently anti-Catholic than MSNBC.

  • Utterly appalling & completely unacceptable! That’s not by accident!

  • Any decent organization has checks and balances. I would be seriously shocked if headlines don’t have to be signed off on by at least 2-3 people before being published on the MSNBC site. (Though as in all such systems, some people may approve without reading or thinking.)

    We have better controls than this on the processes I deal with at my company despite the fact we have individual people publishing hundreds of changes per week.

    So while I could perhaps believe that the original mistake was some sort of mental slip, letting it through was gross negligence possibly compounded by actual anti-catholicism.

    I mean, seriously, you don’t imagine that MSNBC would “accidentally” run a headline saying “Obama Admits Accepting Bribes, Promises Not To Run Again” because some totally unrelated black Democratic politician had made such an admission, would you? This seems like a similar scope mistake.

  • Its clearly their idea of fun, let an obvious slander against the Pope pass and then come up with a proforma apology.

  • A few years back, MSNBC made a somewhat similar gaffe during an interview with Niger Innis, a spokesman for the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE). They posted a graphic on the screen in which Niger’s first name was spelled with two “g”s. The mistake was quickly spotted, MSNBC apologized, and Innis didn’t make a big deal of it.

    Years ago I wrote a lengthy feature story about a man who had been a ham radio operator for more than 50 years. A few days later, he called to thank me for the story, which he said was wonderful except for one little thing… I had called him George Flanagan instead of Glenn Flanagan (his real name). He was very kind and respectful about it and not upset however.

    Recently I started doing occasional theater reviews for the local newspaper. In my first draft of one such review I referred to an actor whose real name was “Sean Michael Butler” as “Sean Michael WINTERS”…. because I had the name of Michael Sean Winters of America magazine on the brain at the time.

    My point is that gaffes like this CAN happen purely by accident — I know because I’ve committed them myself. So I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that the “pope” headline was deliberate. The biased and slanted content of the stories themselves, however, is another matter completely.

  • Cancel your newspapers and cancel your cable TV – the only way to fight back. We do want to fight back don’t we? Be careful how you spend your money.

  • MSNBC: Unfair and unbalanced

  • I agree Marc, but I’d spread that to include the execrable Faux News and Crappy News Network as well. Journalism is a joke today.

  • They think they have the last laugh, lol, no problem, God has his way of dealing with ‘no good’ evil people like msnbc, watch just watch!

  • Do the Catholic-haters,aka MSNBC/NYT, ever reflect on why they are allowed to print lies in English, rather than in Arabic or Turkish? They would learn how the Catholics and the Pope saved the bacon of their European ancestors by the Battle of Tours; the Battle of Vienna; and the naval Battle of Lepanto. For dessert: How Saint Clare stopped the advance of the Huns.
    By the way DarwinCatholic, “anti-catholicism” should be
    “anti-Catholicism” as other religions and adjectives that
    modify them enjoy. One does not see: muslim, lutheran, amish, methodist, baptist, and forty thousand others.

  • Elaine Krewer listed three typos as examples of “gaffes”. MSNBC’s headline would be one serious typo. The headline is deliberate and she knows it; otherwise, MSNBC would have
    issued a hasty apology.

  • Nemo, my whole point is that I DO NOT KNOW that the headline was deliberate, and MSNBC DID issue a hasty apology (the same day it happened).

    Things like this do happen, and Kevin Jones’ explanation makes sense to me. The examples I cited from my own experience were NOT “typos”, i.e. totally accidental misspellings, but lapses of judgement on my part — I wasn’t paying close enough attention to the real name of the person in question. Something similar COULD have happened with regard to the “pope” headline.

    My point is, let’s direct our outrage where it belongs — to the content and reporting of these stories, and not against some copy editor or headline writer, or whatever the equivalent title is in TV news, who might have slipped up.

  • If said copy editor, headline writer, etc. did slip up and make an honest mistake, but gets fired to placate outraged Catholics while the reporters and assignment editors acting engaging in obviously biased reporting are allowed to stay and keep drawing their six- or seven-figure salaries, I don’t think that would be at all fair or just.

  • Cheer up! Based on how things are heading, in 5 years the NYT will no longer exist in print form. Can they survive and make money as a web-only newspaper? Maybe … maybe not. So how do you think it hits these folks to see that their beloved cage liner will not outlast the Catholic Church?

  • Perhaps, it was a mistake. Most likely, not a mistake. It gives me the willies that our Holy Father is being attacked so viciously, especially during Holy Week, and so soon after Obama signed the worthless Executive Order prohibiting federal funding of abortions, that I think we are all aware of the possibility of a decree being issued to Catholics, more subtle than the below, but nevertheless a decree:

    “More and more the people must be separated from the churches and their organs the pastors . . . Just as the deleterious influences of astrologers, seers and other fakers are eliminated and suppressed by the State, so must the possibility of church influence also be totally removed . . . Not until this has happened, does the state leadership have influence on the individual citizens. Not until then are the people and Reich secure in their existence for all time. “

    Martin Bormann, Head of the Nazi Party Chancellery, June 1941.

  • Moe, are you suggesting that this is part of a conspiracy to separate us from Christ and ruin this country? Do you really think there are people who want to remove God and replace Him with the god-state?

  • AK,
    Of course, I detect your facetiousness, but, yep, it has become meaningless to appeal to any higher law, God’s law, above the commands of the State. The Church is the State’s strongest opposition, ideologically speaking, and the media is the State’s strongest ally and is dutifully doing its job in attempting to destroy the Church, as evidenced by the latest round of attacks.

    Furthermore, there is no room for the Cross because suffering must be eliminated, at the expense of the weakest. And because the Cross has been eliminated, there will be no Simons, only the State. Pretty sterile stuff. The Paschal Mystery has been replaced with cute bunnies, chocolates, and baskets. Everything is feel-good fluff and Greek columns. Just take a look at the 70-year-old sexy-looking botoxed Lying Worthless Political Hack, who, as Elaine so recently succinctly put it, never saw an infanticide that she didn’t like.

  • If anyone is STILL watching MSNBC, I hope they will stop…

  • MSNBC purports to be a credible news agency. If this was a flub, then head(s) should roll given the enormity of the mistake. If it was intentional, as most of the comments indicate, then it is totally in-excusable. Either way MSNBC loses its credibility and is probably the reason why no one has been taking them seriously for a very long time and they are in the tank. So one can only say about this ridiculous headline ..consider the source!!! and be about your business.

  • Elaine: Yes dear,but that’s why they have proof-readers!! Or have they been down-sized?? at MSNBC!
    along with truth and sense of fair-play?

  • +Easter Blessings!
    It could have very easily been a mistake, most of what happens at MSNBC is a mistake!

The Myth of Tolerance by Our Intellectual Superiors

Tuesday, March 30, AD 2010

With the vilification that the political left has done to the right, we Catholics also suffer from the same abuse.  Take point in fact that U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops spokesperson Sister Mary Ann Walsh demonized Pro-Life Catholics by regurgitating uncorroborated reports of racism against ObamaCare proponents and attributed them to Pro-Life Catholics with her blog entry.

Such blatant disregard for facts in order to advance your personal agenda has become the norm in the mainstream media as well.  The Media Research Center has provided the following synopsis to clarify this point:

Update I (4:12pm CST): Prominent Republican Gets Actual Death Threat, NYT Suddenly Drops Concern Over Threatening.  To read the entire story by Clay Waters of NewsBusters click here.

Update II (4:21pm CST): A video was tracked down showing Representative John Lewis of Georgia, whom Sister Mary Ann Walsh referenced in her blog post showing absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any racial epithets being thrown around.  Again, the uncorroborated evidence that Sister Mary Ann Walsh referenced is a fabricated lie and she willfully used this to smear Pro-Lifers in her less than charitable blog posting.

The video is here:

Update III (6:26pm CST): Representative John Lewis of Georgia, the very man who lied that there were racist remarks yelled at him at the Tea Party protests is known to be very hyperbolic himself.  Jeff Poor of NewsBusters recounts the time back in 1995 how Representaive Lewis defamed Republicans by painting them as ‘Nazis‘.

Representative Lewis has shown himself to be nothing more than a political hack that lashes out when he doesn’t get his way.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

30 Responses to The Myth of Tolerance by Our Intellectual Superiors

  • Take point in fact that U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops spokesperson Sister Mary Ann Walsh demonized Pro-Life Catholics by regurgitating uncorroborated reports of racism against ObamaCare proponents and attributed them to Pro-Life Catholics with her blog entry.

    –How is the “regurgitating uncorrobarated reports”? She says that “Anonymous messages are being left on voicemails – I even got one from a nun, for goodness sake.”

  • Jim,

    She connected the alleged racism at the Tea Party protests to Pro-Life Catholics and went into the whole melodrama of Rep. Lewis experiencing the same verbal abuse during the civil rights era.

  • Here’s what she wrote in the first four paragraphs, Tito. She doesn’t even mention “Pro-Life Catholics” anywhere in her post. Yes, she is referring to opponents of the legislation, but surely there are people out there who opposed the legislation for other reasons. Am I missing something?

    The heat in the aftermath of passage of health care reform reveals the depth of feeling among those for and against the landmark bill that affects all Americans. Such heat, however, cannot justify the verbal and physical violence that has ensued.

    If we needed health care because of the crisis affecting the sick, especially the weakest among us, we need even more a move toward civility, if not for our own betterment then at least for the betterment of our children.

    Politics has become a kind of blood sport. News junkies over the weekend heard reports of crowds shouting racist remarks and individuals spitting at African American lawmakers, including John Lewis, who suffered violence years ago when he marched for Civil Rights. Surely he – and all of us – has a right to expect that that chapter of despicable, racist violence long over.

    We’ve seen reports of homes and offices of lawmakers vandalized and heard of death threats. Anonymous messages are being left on voicemails – I even got one from a nun, for goodness sake. If that isn’t proof that we’ve gone astray I don’t know what is.

  • Jim,

    Yes, she is referring to opponents of the legislation [ie, Pro-Life Catholics], but surely there are people out there who opposed the legislation for other reasons. Am I missing something?

    Yes there are other people who oppose health care for other reasons, but the number one issue was abortion, which in even in the end the USCCB came down against ObamaCare because of this issue.

    The heat you are referring to is the anger out there that ObamaCare passed without the people’s consent nor with any bipartisanship.

    Though it is exactly the racism that Sister Walsh is referring to, which there is no proof hence the ‘uncorroborated’ remark, which she paints Pro-Life Catholics with.

  • She refers to “reports”. She does not say that those things happened. And go to other websites. Many–probably most–of the people who oppose ObamaCare do so because of things not connected to abortion.

    I, for one, am still not convinced that ObamaCare does fund abortion–except for allowing for the possibility of abortion at Indian reservations and community health care centers, which are minor matters in my view. Can you or Don prove that Obama does fund abortions beyond those?

  • Jim,

    I don’t doubt that such voicemails are occurring, what I am pointing out is the example that Sister Walsh specifically uses to drive her point of demonizing pro-life Catholics by painting them with the same brush as a ‘racists’.

    As to your point about abortion being paid for by ObamaCare, that is for another thread, not this one which you are hijacking.

    I will delete anymore of your comments that do not deal with Sister Walsh’s demonizing of Pro-Life Catholics.

  • And Tito, I sincerely doubt that what she did technically qualifies as “demonizing” anyone by mentioning “reports”. I also sincerely doubt that the majority of the opposition was because of the abortion issue, if you read some of the polls. Please link to a poll which shows that the majority of the opposition was because of that issue.

    I’ll wait for you and Don to start a post on the issue of what ObamaCare does and doesn’t cover.

  • I find it HI-larious that these establishment liberals, Catholic or secular, are now eminently concerned with the disposition of the protesters.

    Oh how far we have fallen from the teach-ins, smoke-outs, and campus occupations of the 1960s. Then it was all legitimate, it was all just, it was the young people making their voices heard.

    This sister is not the first left-leaning Catholic I have heard denouncing the internet as a medium of communication, invoking “anonymity”, and obviously desiring a return to the more easily controlled, less free, and less accountable print media.

    Wherever freedom thrives in communication as opposed to government control, conservative points of view also thrive – the vast majority of them NOT steeped in “racism”, but in firm if not always charitable rejections of the leftist agenda.

    Of course, these people believe it is more uncharitable to call them names than it is to force people to buy private health insurance at gun point.

  • Jim,

    People opposed this bill for many different reasons. But the majority of Catholic opposition was primarily about abortion and the vast majority of heat any Catholic supporters of the health care bill are taking is b/c of their unwillingness to put life first. I’m disturbed by your statement that you believe a billion taxpayer dollars (for starters) being funnelled into CHC’s w/out any Hyde Amendment protections is a “minor” issue. The vast majority of Americans, pro-choice and pro-life alike, do not believe taxpayers should be subsidizing or funding abortion in any way. This is a dramatic increase right now and it sets up a restriction free tool for federally funded abortions in the future. That is not a minor change in federal policy. Catholics who deny this or treat it as a non-issue need to seriously revisit the teachings of the Church on the primacy of protecting human life. It’s not something that can be put aside let alone hindered in accomplishing something else you happen to like.

    I’m sorry – I know this is further getting off topic. Feel free to delete.

  • That was the most selective reading and least charitable interpretation of Sister Mary Ann’s post possible.

  • Of course the good Sister’s claim that some members of Congress may have been spit on may also be an uncharitable claim.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/28/congressman-spit-on-by-te_n_516300.html

  • RR,

    As your “selective” reading into Church teaching that forces others against their free will to pay for health insurance.

  • Jim,

    If she was sincere she wouldn’t haven’t chosen the uncorroborated racist reports for her straw man.

  • Yeah, I heard Sister Mary Ann smokes ganja in the sacristy before Mass. I heard it. I heard it I did.

  • As Catholics, real Catholics and not liberals playing catholics, we are not to engage in gossip and hearsay. On those grounds alone, she’s off.

    As for the ‘racism’, I was there and I didn’t see anyone spit, attack or yell any racist slurs. Although one Senior Citizen did call Barney Frank a gay commie – however, I don’t know why anyone would denounce that – it is true and Barney appears to be proud of it.

    The pro-Constitution anti THIS health care reform bill group outside the Capitol on that dark day was multi-ethnic and included black Americans. In fact one black man running for Congress led all of us in prayer and the funding of baby killing was the overwhelming objection along with fiscal soundness, because we can’t afford this mess. KILL THE BILL was chanted and so was BABY KILLERS during the meeting of the rules (or lack thereof) committee.

    For her to address racism with no evidence and spread it as truth, even if it is merely implied, is unCatholic, wrong and typical of all of those poor, misguided people who are progressives before they are Catholic. Before you go yelling that the rest of us are conservative before we are Catholic – be aware that those are the same things. To be Catholic is to be conservative in the strictest sense and that does not mean Right Wing or Republican. It means one who sticks to the old ways of right reason, natural law and morality and our ancient Faith.

    To be a progressive Catholic is to insist that revelation did not end with the death of the last Apostle and that the Church needs to get more hip instead of sticking to what Christ taught us 2,000 years ago and still teaches those of us who ask Him and not some excommunicated religious or government bureaucrat.

    The Sister may be well-intentioned, she may be confused, she may be working for Satan – either way – she’s wrong.

  • Oh for crying out loud. Just last week pro-lifers were praising Sr. Mary Ann Walsh to the skies for her succinct explanation of how Obamacare funds abortion and why this was not acceptable. She stepped up to the plate at precisely the moment when other “nuns” were trying to sow confusion.

    Now all of a sudden, she’s a tool of Satan because she repeated second hand reports from “news junkies”?

    It’s one thing to be “intolerant” of blatantly pro-abortion “Catholics” like the Lying Worthless Political Hack, who never met an abortion she didn’t like, or of the “nuns” who went out of their way to defy the bishops on the very question of abortion funding. But please, give Sr. Mary Ann SOME credit for calling out the real “tools of Satan” who were hard at work last week.

  • Elaine,

    I only stated she is demonizing Pro-Lifers, not that she is a tool of Satan.

    I’m sure Satan would disagree with you here.

  • I used that hyperbole in a series of descriptions and I stated that I don’t know which one (implying, ‘if any’) apply to her, but that no matter the outcome of her disposition – she is wrong – no racism occurred, no evidence of racism has been presented, taken as a whole Tea Party supporters are not racist. She was engaged in either gossip or hearsay – neither sin befits a Catholic, clergy, lay or religious.

    I am not casting stones, I am merely stating that on this issue she is wrong. My post was also directed at progressive Catholics who may or may not have posted in this thread, who desire to disparage Catholics of a more conservative stripe like St. Paul or Pope Benedict XVI.

    I also never said ‘tool’ – I said ‘working for’ – which is probably true of all us at one time or another, on one issue or another, in one aspect or another – thank God for the Sacrament of Penance.

  • Elaine,

    I think the biggest problem with Sister Mary Ann is that she passes on things that have been “heard” as fact. It seems these things are false. As such she is passing on what are in essence lies. Sister Mary Ann was brave in pointing out the flaws of the nuns sowing confusion about health care. Now she is sowing confusion.

    Its okay to critque her.

  • I read Sr. Walsh’s post and was so crushed by it that I responded back with 2 comments. So far, she has not posted them yet. My guess is she is selective in posting comments from readers.

    It is a shame that USCCB treats us like children who don’t know how to read legislative language or who do not understand inferred language or double speak.

    Plus, the claims she made about racism are unsubstantiated. One can only assume she came to that end by watching MSNBC or CNN. These two channels have been pushing that story. Yet, nobody mentions that Rep. Jackson and his father, Rev. Jackson had a video camera and were recording every step along the way. There were also TV crews all over recording the historic event. Where–pray tell, is the evidence of somebody being spat on or being denigrated in any other way?

    We are being forced into buying a “good” or a “commodity” that we don’t want and an insensible group of people are saying that we should focus on civility. Was the process of the administration and their congress civil in any respect?

    Good minded Catholics fell into that trap in 2008 because they thought it would be a nice thing to vote Obama into office because he held such promise and we just couldn’t possibly rule him out because a fringe group says he’s Socialist. Let’s be civil and give the man a chance. Well, here we are 2 years later and our Bishops are applauding the bill silently and hoping that the language that includes abortion can be taken out. Really? Tell that to the very people who’ve been risking their jobs and livelihood to fight against Roe V Wade for almost 40 years.

    The problem with the subsidiarity ideal is not that it has been tried & found wanting but that it has not yet been tried.

  • oh..and there was a black gentleman who was left hospitalized after an attack by SEIU thugs who were bused in to a townhall meeting. Nobody covered that…Sr. Walsh didn’t write a blog post on that…but yet, it was recorded on video and is floating around on youtube!

  • I don’t think it’s inaccurate to say that *SOME* opponents of the health care bill / tea party folks have dabbled in racism. Yesterday I was invited to join a Facebook group opposing Obamacare, and their photo section included:

    An image of the president in front of the White House with a comment, “Hey, who’s the monkey on our porch?”

    A photoshopped image of the presidential limo with huge rims added.

    A sign reading “Welcome to Kenya, Birthplace of Barack Hussein Obama.”

    If this kind of crap is online, I wouldn’t be surprised if it has also cropped up at Tea Party rallies.

  • JohnH,

    So you have evidence of any racial epithets throw Representative John Lewis’ way during the ObamaCare vote?

    Or you’re just “sharing”.

  • But was the Congressman spit on?

  • I didn’t see anyone spit at him, but to be fair, it is difficult to tell by the grainy video.

  • True enough. Hard to tell but does not look like it.

    Also some on the racism of the Obama Administration:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/the_obama_administrations_ramp.html

  • Tito: I’m just saying that based on my own experience with some of the extreme elements on the fringes of the anti-Obamacare movement, accusations of racist epithets do not seem unlikely.

    And, BTW, I am not trying to say that only the right-wing can get ugly at political rallies. I have personally been spat on and physically assaulted at a pro-life march before, and it wasn’t by Tea Partiers.

  • How is welcoming people to Kenya racist? Maybe he was born in Kenya. His ancestors on his father’s side do come from Kenya. Being from Kenya may be a fact, it my be incorrect, it may just merely be conjecture – but pointing it out isn’t racist. The president is half African, that is a fact – nothing racist about pointing out that his father was in fact an African, just as his mother was in fact a white American. Where’s the racism?

    The monkey on the porch statement could be racist; however, it could just as easily be a reference to Darwinism. Don’t Progressives, like the president, assert that human beings are just talking monkeys. I think they are wrong, but who am I to judge.

    Again, to be clear, sure there are racists in American and they are all idiots. Most belong on the left side of the equation, even when they are allegedly from the right. The simple fact is that liberals/progressives/fascists/collectivists are inherently racist because they seek to divide people into groups. Traditionalists/conservatives prefer to see everyone as a unique, unrepeatable individual and we Christians are called to respect the dignity of each of God’s children because each one is infinitely valuable in His eyes.

    Furthermore, being against Obama because he is half-black is utterly stupid – he should be despised because he is all red – Commie red – that is an ideology and being against it and those who practice and promote Communism, is not racist – it is just prudent.

    I saw and met no racists, no spitting and heard no racial slurs. Could that have occurred? Sure it could have. But to bring it up, as conjecture or fact, with absolutely no evidence or indication of it, is simply a smear tactic right out of Alinsky’s playbook (you know the one he dedicated to the first revolutionary – Lucifer).

  • The monkey on the porch statement could be racist; however, it could just as easily be a reference to Darwinism. Don’t Progressives, like the president, assert that human beings are just talking monkeys. I think they are wrong, but who am I to judge.

    Wow. You’ve either got to be joking or willfully obtuse.

  • JohnH,

    Perhaps sarcasm doesn’t translate well on the Internet. I was merely trying to point out the ridiculous mindset of Progressives Darwinists and for that matter racists too.

Vatican Condemnation of Halloween is False

Saturday, October 31, AD 2009

[Updates at the bottom of this post.]

In what is a common occurrence that happens more than you think, the media again has done a poor job of reporting the news that emanates from the Vatican.  If it came from the Vatican at all.  The new one today is that the Catholic Church condemns Halloween, or some variation there of.

Various news outlets have reported that the Pope, the Catholic Church, or the Vatican have condemned, blasted, slammed, or as the Times of London said, “reserved their venom for the millions of parents who allowed their children to celebrate this “pagan” festival.”

And people say anti-Catholicism doesn’t exist?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

7 Responses to Vatican Condemnation of Halloween is False

  • I’m kinda curious how folks are celebrating Halloween in Spain, that they were able to find two quotes that could be shoe-horned into this story.

    The Times story says:
    José Sánchez González, the Bishop of Sigüenza-Guadalajara, in central Spain, went further, suggesting that Hallowe’en parties had a “background of the occult and anti-Christianity”. He said that he saw the dark influence of Hollywood playing with the young minds of Spanish children as they danced innocently around pumpkins, little realising that they were attending a pagan festival.

    “Due to this influence, Hallowe’en started being celebrated several years ago and it is spreading more and more, without people knowing what it is that they are celebrating,” he said.

    Sounds to me like they might actually have a problem– same way that the GB Christian group they quote to support their article is trying to deal with the real problems of vandalism and kids getting hit by cars while they’re out trick or treating.

  • Pingback: USA Today Reports on Catholic Blogosphere « The American Catholic
  • And who wrote this article “Vatican Condemnation of Halloween is False” ?? There is no author under the title … so we don’t know who to respond to, but going to the Contributors list, I realized that not one of the contributors is a Church Official or a priest. So, how could YOU be the authority on what the Church teaches? I would rather go with the priest from Spain than your opinions. Hope you can find the Truth and discern spirits .. especially during this time of occult and satanic rituals.

  • So, how could YOU be the authority on what the Church teaches?

    The Church publishes her binding teachings, and I don’t mean in a newspaper.

    Thus, it’s not a matter of the person posting having authority or not– it’s a matter of truth, which requires no authority to share.

    It doesn’t matter if someone is a Priest or “Church Official,” if they’re saying something is true when it isn’t, or if they’re being quoted as “the Vatican says” when it’s their view.

    (BTW, while there isn’t an author listed, you could go to the trackback right above your comment, go through and notice the first comment there is “Bravo, Tito.”)

  • I would rather go with the priest from Spain than your opinions.

    So that means I can follow whatever Richard McBrien says? After all, he’s a priest and dresses like one when he’s on TV.

New York Times Rejects Archbishop Dolans Article, Why?

Friday, October 30, AD 2009

Archbishop Timothy DolanThe New York Times rejected an op-ed article submitted by Archbishop Timothy Dolan of the Archdiocese of New York.  Why may I ask would the New York Times reject an article from His Excellency?  Probably because Archbishop Dolan called out the New York Times for their yellow journalism.

Of course those not familiar will Colonial American history will “poo poo” this particular article.  But as early as A.D. 1642 there were laws in the books that required test oaths administered to keep Catholics out of office, legislation that barred Catholics from entering certain professions (such as Law), and measures enacted to make Catholics incapable of inheriting or purchasing land.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

30 Responses to New York Times Rejects Archbishop Dolans Article, Why?

  • What would you expect? Evil knows who the real enemy is, and doesn’t waste effort on wannabes.

  • It would be pretty uncomfortable not to be hated by, um (coughs) “minions.”

    St. Max Kolbe, St. Frances de Sales and St. Paul the Apostle are the patrons of journalists. Integrity in the press would be pleasing, for a change.

  • Tito:

    There are far more recent examples of blatant anti-Catholicism in American history.

    For starters, you might want to look into what was then known as the Blaine Amendment.

    “The American River Ganges,” Harper’s Weekly,
    September 30, 1871, p.916. Wood engraving.

    By the middle of the nineteenth century, large numbers of Catholic children had withdrawn from the significantly Protestant American public schools to attend newly organized Roman Catholic schools. With a large and influential Irish Catholic constituency, the powerful New York City Democratic machine centered at Tammany Hall persuaded the Democratic state legislature to provide public support for the Irish schools. A firestorm of controversy ensued, especially in states like Ohio and Illinois,where the Catholic hierarchy had made similar requests. The controversy re-ignited smouldering Republican nativism, a policy of protecting the interests of indigenous residents against immigrants; and it suddenly became attractive as a vote-getter since that Reconstruction issues appeared to have been resolved. Tammany politicians are shown dropping little children into the “American River Ganges,” infested with crocodilian bishops. The American flag flies upside down, the universal signal of distress, from the ruins of a public school. Linking Roman Catholicism to the Ganges, the sacred river of Hinduism, suggested its exotic un-Americanism and also linked it with what Americans then considered a primitive and fanatical religion.

  • One significant part missing from the Archbishop’s article is that anti-Catholicism has waned a good deal since the colonial and founding days of this country. While it’s clearly still a very real and significatn part of the national mindset as he shows, had he mentioned this trend and shown an example – i.e., the positive reception of the past two popes when visiting this country – it may have been better received by the NY Times?

  • [A]nti-Catholicism has waned a good deal since the colonial and founding days of this country.

    I don’t believe this to be true; instead, I believe anti-Catholicism is not as blatant as it was in earlier days, which is why this would seem to be the case.

    After all, it is not without compellingly good reason why it has been declared (quite rightly) that “anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice”.

  • The Archbishop should remove the log from his own eye as well. He has his own biases which he shares with all his brother bishops and he, as they do, refuses to listen as well to the victims of his particular bigotry.

    What goes around comes around Timothy. Please look at yourself as well.

  • While [Anit-Catholicism] has been declared (quite rightly) that “anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice”.”, that doesn’t speak clearly to the extent of that bias, it only speaks that the bias still concretely exists. The fact that Evangelicals (see “Has the Reformation Ended?” by Noll and Nystrom) have been slowly moving toward closer relations and mutual understanding with Catholics, along with the general Protestant population as well, it’s quite clear that there is an improvement to the bias that has existed from the beginning.

    I agree that the bias is still strong, especially in the popular media, though as you mention less blatant. But even then there has been a slow but discernible improvement. See the NY Times coverage of Vatican II – the paper itself showed surprisingly positive comments on the council, granted, it tended to want to see the Catholic Church as a “changed church”, and not just development. But nonetheless, a respect was shown that would not have been present back in the 19th century.

  • Karl Says: “Archbishop should remove the log from his own eye as well”

    Karl, Archbishop does acknowledge the Catholics issues, maybe not as much as you like? But he does. Rehashing further those Catholic issues would require The NY Times to do the same every time it writes about a topic, certainly not something that will ever happen. But the Archbishop certainly deserves his say in the most influential newspaper in this country on a topic of significant importance. If you use your line of reasoning, then the NY Times would also have to do the same, and we’d have to do without that newspaper for a long time until that log was removed!

  • Publius:

    While I might grant that there has been apparently good sentiments towards establishing good relations with Catholics by some members of certain Protestant denominations (whether wholly or in part); surely, good vibes from merely a selection of Protestant individuals cannot translate as meaning the “general Protestant population”; furthermore, the general populace of America itself does not consist merely in such a population as this but extends to those who are merely secularist or are themselves beholden to other categories not even Protestant, which such anti-Catholicism also eminate.

    Rest assured, anti-Catholicism is alive and well; it’s just not as conspicuous as it used to be.

  • e.:

    I should have said that there are significant, meaningful efforts underway for decades – in particular, since Vatican II – that have made an impact in Protestantism. You’re right; it’s an overstatement to say these changes have affected the general Protestant populations. Having clarified that, it is clear that numerous Protestants and Protestant churches (not to mention a few agnostics/atheists) have gained a growing respect for Catholicism. I speak of the Protestant segment of the population because it is the largest segment and one that I know where meaningful change is taking place. If it can be shown one segment is affected, then it shows there is change, no matter how small.
    One area of change has occurred when numerous leaders on both sides of the Protestant / Catholic fences are finding important ways of working together, leaders – such as those involved in Evangelical and Catholics Together. They are leaders for a reason, they bring followers. And while this is always a bit nebulous in the Protestant world, there are a number of examples that can show this is taking root. Also, Protestants and Catholics have stood together in front of numerous abortion clinics, an action that is bound to produce more than ‘good vibes’. It builds shared values, which is a solid base to build on. This is a very slow process, but a process that is in the works. I am involved in two ecumenical groups myself where a learning process is underway that is yielding mutual respect and understanding, which requires a yield to the traditional bigotry.
    And no need to continue repeating Anti-Catholicism is still alive and well, we agree on this. I just think it’s important and helpful to acknowledge that serious effort and action has been made in past decades, especially since and because of Vatican II, that indicates the roots and resulting fruit that has taken place. It doesn’t diminish the reality of the “last acceptable prejudice” in this country.

  • I know it is called anti-Catholicism, but I think it is different in kind now than it was in the past. While many so-called anti-Catholics may see our beliefs as incoherent and superstitious as to theological/sacramental matters (eg, transubstantiation), the current anti-Catholicism is focused more on our ethical/moral beliefs. Thus, it’s not limited to anti-Catholic, but anti-anyone who does not agree with their morality.

  • c matt is correct in my view, which explains why the animus is directed more from so-called cultural elites and liberals than conservative fundies. The latter disagree with us, and have very odd understandings of our beliefs, but with a few exceptions really don’t demonize us. Moreover, the latter group is comparatively powerless.

  • Publius:

    While I agree with you that such advances have indeed been made insofar as our relationship concerning certain Protestants go; however, I believe what’s being neglected here is that these seemingly minor events have not led to any significant eradication or even a diminishment of anti-Catholicism in general and, as I’ve attempted to point out in my latter remark (admittedly, rather poorly), the general population of the United States is not primarily comprised of just Protestants. There are several other folks who are just as, if not, far more fierce in their anti-Catholicism.

    c matt:

    I’m afraid I need to disagree with you there.

    The PZ Myers affair itself would seem precisely indicative of the kind of underlying prejudice (still alive as it is ubiquitous & rampant) certain categories of Americans (in this case, the scientific community as well as various secular groups) harbor specifically towards our kind.

    That is, I don’t believe it is really merely a matter of Christian morals, which any other Christian denomination apart from ours may likewise subscribe to; and, yet, I doubt that they would suffer incidents similar to the hideous kind Catholics are typically victim to, like the one here.

  • This is no surprise to me. More and more, the MSM is simply ignoring criticism or stories which do not promote their leftist POV. They didn’t vet Obama properly, they barely reported on Van Jones, they dropped the ball on ACORN – but we know what designer made the dress Michelle wore on date night. People complain about Fox, but the truth is that Fox is doing the job the rest of the MSM refuses to do.

    In the meantime, the NY Times circulation continues to tank and they recently had another big layoff. If it wasn’t for Mexican billionaire Carlos Sim, the Gray Lady would already be six feet under.

    The Church will be around long after the Times prints its last snide MoDo column.

  • Pingback: Vatican Condemnation of Halloween False « The American Catholic
  • If you go to Fox News you will see the entire Archbishop’s comments on their web site. I sent a copy of your web site article to Fox when it came out and whether or not they had planned to reprint it I do not know, but it is on their web site.

  • I should add that it is under their Opinion page.

  • Doesn’t matter.

    Anyone wanting to do an honest search will find our website or another Catholic website/blog with the correct information.

    As long as it gets out. Eventually most of the more outlandish attacks on our faith should subside with time. If not, those, like the New York Times, will get less and less credibility with their attacks.

  • Pingback: No Islamic Holy Sites Destroyed in 2012 Movie, Fear of Fatwa « The American Catholic
  • I do not think the NY Times is at all anti Catholic. Three years ago the Times published a Phenomenal and Wonderful Article about the NY Catholic Foundling and the work of Saint Elizabeth Seton and her Sisters of Charity.

    I think that perhaps Archbishop Dolan may just be a tad thin skinned and doesn’t understand the language of locals and natives……. He just needs time and the neverending tolerance and patience of the people we are — New Yorkers. He’s a shepherd. Perhaps sheep graze on different grass in the midwest. He’ll come around and see we’re not so scary!!!!!!!!! Francis de Sales, Gabriel, John Chrysostom, etc. love us all equally and are with us all. Maybe he was just having a bit of a belly ache after eating that case of Tasykakes sent to him by Archbishop Rigali of Philly!!!!

  • Being anti-catholic is like charging someone with being anti-semitic. This type of vitriol is thrown for the purpose of intimidating and silencing the views of others. The Archbishop has a right, if not a responsibility, to preach to his flock whatever he feels is proper according to his faith. The rub comes when he speaks or acts beyond that in an attempt to influence, if not shape, public policy. As a voter, he is free to. But as a cleric, he is out of bounds.

  • “The rub comes when he speaks or acts beyond that in an attempt to influence, if not shape, public policy.”

    So when the bishops of America speak out against abortion, would such acts be considered “an attempt to influence, if not shape, public policy”?

  • Absolutely… the Archbishop could, just as any other citizen, speak as a civilian (preferably in street clothes) and make his position clear. Speaking as a cleric and a leader of an organization accepting tax benefits, he is out of place.

  • Would similar individuals within an organization such as the Evangelical Society count?

  • The first test is whether they are granted tax free status, if so, then they would need to speak as individual and not from the authority of some tax supported organization… From the internet, I understand the Evangelical Society to believe the following: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.” These beliefs are clear but the relevance to the modern world is highly unclear.

  • zukunftsaugen,

    I disagree 100%.

    He is the shepherd of the Catholic Church in New York City and he has the right and the duty to lead them.

    Your ideas are bordering on totalitarianism.

    If that is what you think anyone in a position of authority should behave, then maybe you should investigate Communist China and see how well they are doing over there.

  • Pingback: The New York Times’s Smear on Pope Benedict « SoCon Or Bust
  • Pingback: Notes on a Scandal (and on a Pope) « An Examen

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.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
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!