Alfred Hofstadter:So, after your husband passed, you never remarried? Mary Cooper: No, just focused on work and the church. Alfred Hofstadter:Ah. And what do you do? Mary Cooper: I work at the church. Alfred Hofstadter:Well, they’re lucky to have you. Mary Cooper: Well, thank you. Alfred Hofstadter: You’re welcome. Amy: [To Sheldon] Do you realize what’s happening here? Sheldon Cooper:Yeah, I do. They’re filling up on bread and ruining their meal.
The Big Bang Theory The Convergence Convergence 2016
I’ve been watching in disbelief as Barack Obama goes whole hog defending Islam on TV and watching CNN & the entire MSM not only highlighting those words and attacks on Donald Trump while being completely stunned that Mr. Trump is not backing down from his previous statements.
It’s as if the entire MSM has become Sheldon Cooper (without the genius) completely oblivious to what his happening in front of their faces.
The gist is post Orlando Donald Trump suggests Barack Obama might not be all that down on defeating Radical Islam and gets the MSM to repeat that charge.
So how does the White House react? Do they ignore it and pursue the investigation of the terror attack? Does the president maintain a dignified silence while allowing surrogates in government to play the “have you no decency” card?
Nope, he respond in person and he doesn’t just respond in person he both defends Islam and defends not talking about radical Islam.
Yes you read that right. Less that 2 days after the most successful Islamic Terror attack on the US since 9/11 Donald Trump manages to get Barack Obama to defend Islam while the blood is still on the floor at Pulse.
But that’s not all, As soon as President Obama was done speaking MSM was covering his words, agreeing with his words, and contrasting his approach to the attacks in Orlando to Mr. Trump. They go all in spending the entire rest of the day repeating this again and again.
So let’s summarize:
After Islamic Terror attack Trump suggests Obama might be weak on Islamic terror
Obama responds by attacking Trump and defending Islam…two days after Islamic Terror attack.
Media repeats and amplifies Obama’s response defending Islam and repeating Trump’s attack. All of this Two days after an successful Islamic Terror attack.
The end result? Within a few days after the single most successful Islamic Terror attack since 9/11 by a man who Obama’s FBI decided was not a threat, Barack Obama is associated with Defending Islam from Trump, while Trump is associated with defending America from radical Islam.
Tuesday was Trump’s birthday, I don’t think the MSM or Barack Obama could have given him a better present.
Donald Trump has completely punked them, The country hasn’t seen such incompetence since the 1962 Mets. If Casey Stengel was a media guy he would be screaming: “Can’t anyone play this game?”
The answer to that question is apparently: Donald Trump.
Exit Question: How much would Donald Trump have paid to get such an image on CMM:
On Friday’s CNN Newsroom, Carol Costello badgered Democratic Rep. Kurt Schrader over his vote in favor of additional scrutiny for Syrian refugees applying to enter the U.S. Costello spotlighted how “some on Twitter have not been kind —calling you a traitor to Oregon and…xenophobic,” and how “some say the intent of this bill is to really create so many checks that it will be impossible for any Syrian refugee to come into this country any time soon.” She later touted how “some say that’s just one part of what some call what’s becoming a disturbing climate in America.
Well some say that use of “some say” is all about reporters giving their personal opinion without admitting it for fear of being suspended or something. Some say it’s just a cowardly way to push a meme. And some say that when asked a question that begins with “some say” the person asked should answer: “When you can give me a name instead of ‘some say’ then I’ll take your question seriously.”.
And in the spirit of this post let me say, The some who says these things is me.
Yesterday all over the web and on TV shows everywhere (even from sane folks like Jake Tapper) about the horrible terrible news that your bacon will be the death of you.
The WHO findings were drafted by a panel of 22 international experts who reviewed decades of research on the link between red meat, processed meats and cancer. The panel reviewed animal experiments, studies of human diet and health, and cell processes that could explain how red meat might cause cancer.
But the panel’s decision was not unanimous, and by raising lethal concerns about a food that anchors countless American meals, it will be controversial
Each 50-gram (1.8-ounce) portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18 percent, the agency estimated.
A 50-gram portion would be the equivalent of eating one hot dog or two slices of bacon. Americans eat about 21.7 grams of processed pork per day, according to a 2011 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Right now a lot of lawyers are licking their chops and a lot of members of the food Gestapo are preparing to demand changes in school heath programs, school diets etc etc and I can feel the sheer panic among shoppers at whole foods from here.
And the reason why this is coming? Well there are two:
Americans are really ignorant about math
What are the actual odds of getting colorectal cancer?
Question #1 matters because while most people hear the words “18% increase” and think that their odds of getting this disease have gone to better than 1-5 the reality is that means the odds have gone up 18% from what they actually were. For example if something has a 1% chance of happening if you increase the chances of that thing happening by 18% the new odds are not 19% as some would think but 1.1% (1/100) * (118/100) or 118/10000 = 1.1%
And Question #2 matters because we can’t find out what the actual new odds are for a particular event until we know what the old odds are, how will we know what number to multiply by 118/100?
Well the answer to question 2 is available online at cancer.org. Going by their charts men have a lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer of 1 in 21 or 4.84% and the odds of a woman catching the same disease is 4.49 or 1 in 22
So even though we know that according to the stats given we eat only 43.4% of a hot dog per day on avg let’s assume for the sake of argument that you actually eat a hotdog every single day for your entire life. what does that do to your cancer odds.
Well if you do the actual math and multiply 4.84/100 by 118/100 it mans that 18% increase makes a man’s odds of getting colorectal cancer go to 5.7% . For a woman that 4.49/100 multiplied by 118/100 the woman’s odds go up to 5.2%
In other words, if this study is absolutely positively spot on correct eating that hotdog every single day for your entire life raises your odds of catching colorectal cancer by nearly but not quite….1%.
Or to put it another way if you’re a gamer if you eat that hotdog a day then your odds of catching colorectal cancer go from being about the odds of rolling a 1 on a D20 to about the odds of rolling a 1 on a D20.
Now when you put it that way, if you told a guy that giving up bacon decreases your odds of getting cancer by less that 1% most people would decide those odds aren’t worth panicking over and would rightly consider such panic as idiotic.
Which is why newspapers that make a living off of scary click bait, tv shows that make money off of scary click bait, NGO’s that make money off of scary panics, and pols who get big contributions from NGO’s after they get taxpayer-funded grants and colleges who get funding from taxpayer and NGO’s to study these things, and lawyers who make money off of suing successfully profitable businesses, like for example the meat industry aren’t going to show you the math I just did.
It doesn’t fit the meme and there is no profit for them in it.
To be fair, there is absolutely nothing wrong if person decides that 1% increase warrants decreasing one’s intake of processed meats, if an individual thinks the increased risk isn’t worth it it’s their life and their choice to make.
But if you do make that choice do so on the actual evidence not due to panic and deception.
The final synod document restated Church teachings that gays should not suffer discrimination in society, but also repeated the stand that there was “no foundation whatsoever” for same-sex marriage, which “could not even remotely” be compared to heterosexual unions.
Pope Francis, ending a contentious bishops’ meeting on family issues, on Saturday excoriated immovable Church leaders who “bury their heads in the sand” and hide behind rigid doctrine while families suffer.
The pope spoke at the end of a three-week gathering, known as a synod, where the bishops agreed to a qualified opening toward divorcees who have remarried outside the Church but rejected calls for more welcoming language toward homosexuals.
It was the latest in a series of admonitions to bishops by the pontiff, who has stressed since his election in 2013 that the 1.2 billion-member Church should be open to change, side with the poor and rid itself of the pomp and stuffiness that has alienated so many Catholics.
Breitbart notes that this has made people like Fr. Thomas Reese a tad upset:
As other Christian communions have little by little caved under the pressures of modern society–abandoning age-old Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality and adapting their standards to a secular morality–the Catholic Church alone has stood firm, they asserted.
But Father Reese and other liberal reformers do not like the Church the way it is. They want to remake it to be like the Anglican Church, a body that modifies its teaching every few years to keep up with the times and mirror the secular world around it. Yet none of these reformers takes the logical step of actually becoming Anglicans, because then they would cease to be relevant.
The liberal desire to make marriage perishable is accompanied by their wish to see homosexuality celebrated as part of God’s plan for humanity.
In fact after last year’s attempt to fix the game the disappointment must have been even greater than the media realizes:
The clearest evidence of a more open and honest synod process in 2015 was that the fruit of last year’s synod — the instrumentum laboris, or working document for this year’s synod — was regularly lambasted by nearly all the language-group reports. It must have been painful for the synod secretariat, which composed the document after last year’s synod, to publish the near-universal disdain for their work, but it is to their credit that they did so. After the second-round of such reports were published, with their withering evaluation of the poor document they had been given, the dynamic for a much different conclusion was set in motion. After the reports were published, simply ramming the instrumentum laboris through was no longer an option.
That the final report was so radically different from the original instrumentum laboris was described by more than one synod father as a “miracle”. But it wasn’t a miracle. It was the difference between a document designed to reflect the priorities and vision of the synod secretariat, which from the beginning favored Cardinal Kasper’s proposal, and a document drafted to reflect the considered judgments of the synod fathers from throughout the Church.
Was the synod rigged? It was once, but not this year. And the reaction to the rigging last year made for a different Synod 2015.
However liberals like Reese have a solution to not getting what they want, do it anyways:
The more likely result will be that certain parishes and dioceses will become known as places where divorced and remarried Catholics are unofficially welcomed at Communion — don’t ask, don’t tell. Pastoral practice will change, and theology and the bishops will catch up eventually.
because he sees no way to be welcoming to those in sin without communion
Whether this pastoral outreach without Communion will sell back home remains to be seen. I doubt it.
I wondered why. I mean, why would someone want to be in the Church if they can’t receive the Eucharist? There are many wonderful things about the Church, but without the Eucharist . . . what’s the point? Who wants to hang around a restaurant if you never get to sit and eat?
And then I realized. The children. People will bring their children to be fed. If they feel welcome, and if they feel like they’re not utterly rejected, even though they can’t receive Communion, they will bring their children to Mass, and will bring their children to catechism class, and will bring their children to the sacraments. They will make sure their children stay involved in the life of the Church. Or at least they might! And there is hope for the next generation . . . and also for the cousins, who always keep up on the family news, and for the friends of the family, and for the lady in the grocery line who stop and chat about marriage and want to know all about your personal life . . .
They can tell that lady, “Well, it’s complicated, but I’m still a Catholic.There is still a place for me. It’s not what I’d wish, but it’s better than nothing. They still want me, and I still need Him.”
Fisher has figured out what Reese has not, this synod wasn’t about ideology it was really about family after all:
That’s what I mean when I say I figured out the Synod. It really wasn’t hidden! It’s all about the family. It’s always been about the family — and the family is about more than the one marriage and the one couple in question. That’s why they didn’t call it “The Synod About Gay People and Divorce” or “The Synod About Just How Popey the Pope Plans to Be, Anyway” or “The I-Don’t-Recall-Jesus-Talking-Much-About-Marriage,-Do-Youuu? Synod” Nope. Every single human being is, for better or worse, part of a family, and because of this, what we do affects lots of other people — and how we’re treated affects lots of other people, too.
It’s about future generations, and also it’s about how the faith of children can affect parents.
I think Fisher’s piece should be distributed to every priest and bishop in the US.
Let me close with a personal story.
Before I switched to St. Bernards I would attend daily mass on Saturday there because they had one and my parish didn’t (I’d also go if I woke up late since they have both a 7 & an 8 AM weekday mass) On Saturdays I noticed a man, maybe 10 years older than me who regularly went up for communion with his hands crosses not accepting the host.
Now he could have stayed in his pew as I do if I’m not confessed, or he could have skipped mass but he did not he went up every time and made it a point to get a blessing.
The more I saw it the more it hit me just how amazing a statement this was. There are three other parishes in the city plus others in adjoining towns. He could easily go to a mass where he is not known and receive to his heart’s content, yet that was not for him instead he would go up, happy to approach christ in the Eucharist but respecting him so much that he would not receive in an unworthy state and by doing so in public he declared to the any person willing to see just what the Eucharist and loving Christ is.
How can you not admire a person like that?
I think he could teach Fr. Reese a thing or two about the Eucharist he certainly taught me and I let him know that he did.
I didn’t ask why he doesn’t receive, I’ll likely never know but I’ll tell you this, when the time comes for me to be I judged I hope that St. Peter can say that I respected the Eucharist as this man does.
After fielding repeated late-night inquiries form reporters, the Vatican announced Wednesday morning that they could neither confirm nor deny the alleged meeting happening, saying they wouldn’t comment further. However, Rev. Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman, later told the New York Times that he “did not deny that the meeting took place, but I have no other comments to add.” The New York Times concluded that in saying as much, he had “confirmed the meeting,” but that remains unclear.
The Vatican is refusing to confirm or deny that Pope Francis met privately with Kim Davis. A Vatican spokesman says that no further statement will be made. So we get no photos, no video, no uninvolved witnesses – just a claim made by an unofficial Kentucky-based website.
A receptionist for the Vatican Embassy in Washington, D.C., confirmed to TheBlaze Wednesday that Pope Francis met with Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis during his visit to the United States last week.
While information about what precisely was discussed during the meeting has not been released, the staffer with the Apostolic Nunciature of the Holy See to the United States said the meeting did occur, confirming statements from Davis’ attorneys.
Mr. Horsey seems to believe the Pope’s medieval economic views are somehow worthy of praise, while ignoring the fact he and Kim Davis share the medieval prejudices. If there is one thing the Pope hates, it is sin, and freedom apparently leads to sin. Certainly, if the poor are blessed because they are poor, he has embraced a view that will expand their numbers greatly, while simultaneously denying social freedoms as well.
The Pope is ultimately as opposed to gay rights as Kim Davis. He doesn’t want gay couples to get married and he sees “homosexual acts [as] intrinsically disordered.” Until last week, he did everything in his power to keep those beliefs hidden. Meeting with her, as if she’s a victim of anything, would send a message that the Church really hasn’t changed at all, even with a popular Pope at its helm.
Which is exactly what critics of religion have been saying for a long time
Anyone who imagines it’s not even possible for the Pope to have met with Kim Davis hasn’t been paying attention.
This Pope isn’t a liberal. His positions aren’t even particularly better, especially on social issues, than his predecessors—he’s just a much more sophisticated spinmaster. And he cunningly exploits our habits of not paying close attention, if we hear something that suits our hopes.
Since his election as to the papacy in 2013, Francis — with his outspoken criticism of global warming and income inequality, as well as his perceived support of the gay community (“Who am I to judge?” he said) — has become a favorite of some liberals. His reported meeting with Davis could feel like a slap to progressives who see him — wrongly or rightly — as their ally on the topic of LGBT acceptance.
Rick Klein: “It’s little surprise that this or any pope would stand up against gay marriage. But having spent time with this particular county clerk – the very public face of outright defiance of the US Supreme Court – has specific ramifications that surely the pope and those around him are aware of. Maybe that was the point – in which case conservatives have every bit as much of the right to cite this papal visit’s political message as their liberal friends.”
To me, if he did meet with Davis, he has undone a lot of the bridge building image he has cultivated. Davis is a divisive figure right now and by aligning with her, he will appear to lack consistency and genuineness.
“That was a great encouragement, just knowing that the pope is on track with what we’re doing,” she told ABC. “Kind of validates everything.”
Here are some MSM reports:
Two interesting notes the first from a grump Guardian that notices an important irony:
Andrew Chesnut, a professor of religious studies at Virginia Commonwealth University, said the apparent meeting with Davis, coupled with his remarks on the plane, put the pope “squarely in the camp of conservative Christians in the US, both Catholic and Protestant, who believe their faith has been persecuted during the presidency of Obama”.He added: “One of the great ironies is that Kim Davis’s Pentecostal faith has historically viewed Catholicism as an idolatrous abomination of Christianity. In the pope’s Latin America, one of the first things many Catholic converts to Pentecostalism do is to make a bonfire to incinerate their Catholic ‘idols,’ such as the saints and Virgin Mary.”
Well that’s what happens when there is pretty much only one faith still fighting.
But the more important point here is what this says about the difference between the Pope and the Press that was covering him. The left & media did all they could to politicize his words as a club to strike their political foes with, they minimized the Pope’s statement in favor of religious freedom and life and talked endlessly about any topic that they felt would help their cause. However the Pope came here with a goal, and that goal, despite what others might think, was evangelization. His method is to take this piece of advice from the Screwtape twelve…
You will say that these are very small sins; and doubtless, like all young tempters, you are anxious to be able to report spectacular wickedness. But do remember, the only thing that matters is the extent to which you separate the man from the Enemy. It does not matter how small the sins are provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing. Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick. Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one-the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts,
…and reverse it. Move them gradually into the light, get them into church, give the Holy Spirit and the Sacraments a chance to allow grace to flow, let it eventually draw them into the confessional and full repentance. The best method for this was for people to hear is words unfiltered, to see his trip as it was, to watch the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as it takes place. This type of thing:
But something else happened which is hard to describe. It was like the very atmosphere of the cathedral had suddenly changed. I could feel the presence and force of Pope Francis’ love for all of us. The screens throughout the cathedral showed his sweet face as he shook people’s hands – and sought out the smallest and weakest in the crowds.
I had been sitting next to a journalist from The Economist all day. She was not a practicing Catholic. Yet, when I turned to her now, she was crying.
“I’m supposed to be a jaded journalist,” she said. “So why am I crying?”
He told me that he wasn’t Catholic – but that his wife was. She often told people that she had “survived” Catholicism growing up on Palm Beach, Florida. Apparently, she’d had several bad experiences growing up which led her to leave the Catholic faith for her whole life.
“This Pope has caused her to look at Catholicism again,” said Bob. “She is seriously thinking about going back to Church now.”
Estela had recently come back to the Catholic Church in a big way because of Pope Francis. She told me that her cubicle was plastered with his pictures and his quotes.
She watched the DC papal parade with a group of high school boys from Gonzaga – a local Catholic school. Apparently, the Pope had come close and waved at them. When Estela looked at them, after the encounter, all the boys had tears in their eyes.
“Boys,” she told them, “Hold onto this feeling. As you go through life and you get challenged, don’t forget this moment. Because this is your Catholic faith.”
Francis’ Visit Made Me Reexamine Myself, and I’m Not Sure I Like What I See
In fact even that encounter with Ms. Davis, a daughter of Catholics who choose a different path before turning back to Christ via a protestant tradition screamed evangelization:
I had asked a monsignor earlier what was the proper way to greet the Pope, and whether it would be appropriate for me to embrace him, and I had been told it would be okay to hug him. So I hugged him, and he hugged me back. It was an extraordinary moment. ‘Stay strong,’ he said to me. Then he gave me a rosary as a gift, and he gave one also to my husband, Joe. I broke into tears. I was deeply moved.
“Then he said to me, ‘Please pray for me.’ And I said to him, ‘Please pray for me also, Holy Father.’ And he assured me that he would pray for me.”
No matter how much spin came before or after it, at least people would see and hear things as they were. Francis may have assumed that if he met with Davis openly suddenly this would be the only topic, that his visit would be instantly converted by the media not as a religious event (that they were trying to politicize) but as a political event that would need to be countered. How much more difficult is it for those who where cheering the open Francis, the welcoming Francis he Francis willing to speak to anyone deal with the idea that “anyone” includes Kim Davis. Mike Dougherty again:
This pope DGAF. He embraces the most hated and excluded.”
“Wait, Kim Davis? But everyone I know hates her!
There seems to be story after breathless story exposing our favorite Muslim “clockboy” stunt as less than a story about a poor young lad being oppressed than a family of activists trying to create a false meme.
The idea of course that the White House jumped the gun because the story served their meme and that the media was doing the same is not new and we are right to expose this BS for what it is, however we should not be surprised when the President fails to pay any price for it.
You see the reality is that the vast majority of the population still gets their info from “mainstream” sources that are unlikely to bother to give any follow up a prominent position assuming they cover it at all that is, but more importantly an even larger number simply don’t care & get all info 2nd hand.
Until the right figures out that they have to play in the culture the best we can do is spread the word ourselves but we shouldn’t be surprised if the effect on the general public is not what we’d like it to be.
Update: This also illustrates the reason why the MSM has gone all in to defend Planned Parenthood, because they skipped the story Carly Fiorina was able to get it out first, but unlike us who only have social media to change perception the media has the full force of government and media to attempt to do so.
Abortion giant Planned Parenthood is lashing out at the Pope, after he’s repeatedly spoken up for the right to life of the unborn during his visit to the United States.
“Despite Pope Francis’ progressive stance on climate change and economic equity, he has taken a back seat when it comes to reproductive health and women’s rights,” said Alexander Sanger, the grandson of eugenicist Margaret Sanger, and board member of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. He’s accusing the Pope of limiting women’s rights and hampering “women’s health.”
I have no explanation for this since I have been repeatedly assured by the Greatest Catholics of All Time in comboxes across St. Blog’s that our weak-kneed Che Guevara pope (the worst since Alexander VI!) utterly failed to speak against abortion and had given aid and comfort to Planned Parenthood.
Research continues in the struggle to explain the stark difference in perception between NPR and Planned Parenthood on the one hand and the League of Perfect Catholics on the other.
FALSE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO POPE FRANCIS
Dear friends, we have been notified by many readers that there are stories currently circulating all over the Internet spreading statements by Pope Francis with regard to a number of issues, concerning the Bible’s content, the relations between religions, the renewal of the Church’s doctrine, and even the calling of an alleged “Third Vatican Council”, which are FALSE. These statements were spread by unknown sources. Therefore, we would like to alert all readers to be careful and not to trust too soon news about the Pope that are not from the Vatican.
That’s been one of the advantages of the live coverage, while many are trying to spin what he says, the actual video is seen by all who wish to. For others, here is a warning from the Vatican:
IF THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE POPE BY ANY MEDIA AGENCY DO NOT APPEAR IN THE OFFICIAL MEDIA SOURCES OF THE VATICAN, IT MEANS THAT THE INFORMATION THEY REPORT IS NOT TRUE.
No matter how much the MSM wants to use & spin the Pope to serve their purposes, and no matter how many might find it to their advantage to hit the Pope, he isn’t here as a political actor, as Father Dwight Longenecker put it:
The Pope is an Evangelist – Pope Francis, like Benedict and John Paul before him, is not only the leader of the world’s Catholics–he is the successor of the Apostles Peter and Paul and they were traveling evangelists. St Paul went to Athens and adapted the gospel message to his philosophical hearers. Likewise, with his emphasis on climate change Pope Francis is making a connection with secular people. He gets them to agree with him on climate change and then goes on to talk about the dignity of the human person, our obligation to the Creator and the need to have an encounter with Christ. This is a good, tried and true evangelistic method.
If you want to reject this Pope because he didn’t sound like Rush or Ted Cruz before congress, then you have no idea what he’s doing here, and if you do only accept this Pope because you think his positions on Climate Change can give cover for yourself as a Catholic who rejects the doctrines of the church then you’re simply deluding yourself.
The Mighty God. In Jesus, God himself became Emmanuel, God-with-us, the God who walks alongside us, who gets involved in our lives, in our homes, in the midst of our “pots and pans”, as Saint Teresa of Jesus liked to say.
The Everlasting Father. No one or anything can separate us from his Love. Go out and proclaim, go out and show that God is in your midst as a merciful Father who himself goes out, morning and evening, to see if his son has returned home and, as soon as he sees him coming, runs out to embrace him. An embrace which wants to take up, purify and elevate the dignity of his children. A Father who, in his embrace, is “glad tidings to the poor, healing to the afflicted, liberty to captives, comfort to those who mourn” (Is 61:1-2).
Prince of Peace. Go out to others and share the good news that God, our Father, walks at our side. He frees us from anonymity, from a life of emptiness and selfishness, and brings us to the school of encounter. He removes us from the fray of competition and self-absorption, and he opens before us the path of peace. That peace which is born of accepting others, that peace which fills our hearts whenever we look upon those in need as our brothers and sisters.
If you don’t get this, if you haven’t heard this then you have no idea what the job of a Pope is or what he’s doing here.
St Paul:To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law – though I myself am not under the law – to win over those under the law. To those outside the law I became like one outside the law – though I am not outside God’s law but within the law of Christ – to win over those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some.
1 Cor 9:20-22
I’ve written a lot about the Spinning of Pope Francis and in his press conference on the plan heading back from Rome he indirectly noted this spin that going on.
Cristina Cabrejas, (EFE): Holy Father, the Spanish-speaking journalists want to ask if you are not somewhat scared that you or your speeches might be exploited by governments, by power (lobby) groups, by movements. Thanks.
Pope Francis:I repeat a bit what I said at the beginning. Every word, every sentence can be exploited. What the journalist from Ecuador asked me, that very sentence, some said it was for the government, others said it was against the government.That is why I allowed myself to speak of the hermeneutics of the whole (speech). They can always be exploited. At times some news takes a phrase, out of context. I am not afraid. Simply I say look at the context. And if I make a mistake, with a bit of shame I ask forgiveness, and move forward.
He is referring to an addition earlier in the press exchange that I’d like to highlight…
And if you allow me, and no one asked me this, but I give you five extra minutes more as a concession, if we need them. In your job, the hermeneutics of a text is very important. A text can’t be interpreted only in one sentence. The hermeneutic has to be applied to the entire context. There are phrases that are exactly the keys to the hermeneutic, and others that aren’t, that are spoken “by the way” or “plasticas.”So, in all of the context, looking at the situation. So looking at the history, so being the history from that moment or if we’re looking at the past we need to interpret an event with the hermeneutic of that time. I don’t know, for instance the crusades – let’s interpret the crusades with a hermeneutic of how they thought in that time, no? It’s key to interpret a speech, any text, with a comprehensive hermeneutic, not isolated. Forgive me, I don’t want to play the “plum teacher” (editor’s note: ‘maestro ciruela;’ Argentine idiom that refers to the teacher who is constantly giving lecturing rants), but I say this to help you.
This is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying concerning the Pope since almost day one from the very first moment the left played the “who am I to judge” card.
I’ve been racking my brains to figure out why people don’t see it and I suspect there are two causes for it.
The first is conditioning. Our friends on the left have become masters of this where their followers hear a particular word they tune out or get angry etc etc etc and of course we on the right have picked up this dog whistle business, when I hear certain words, I tend to assume “loony left”. When people say “investments” I know they mean taxes etc etc etc…
However the church doesn’t speak that language, the language of the church is Christ and when your primary concern is Christ your look on the land is different. It’s not a question of looking for a spin to advocate for a particular ideology. It’s delivering a message in the context of a sermon designed to get a particular audience heading in the way of salvation.
But the second issue is because the media Bias in play here is completely atypical.
Normally when the media hates someone they do all they can to either ignore their words or spin them negatively.
This time the media, who in my opinion hate Pope Francis even more than they hated Pope Benedict, is deliberately spinning him positively (at least in a way THEY would consider positively).
“But DaTechGuy”, you say, “That’s ridiculous”, “the Pope has said all kinds of things that Benedict hasn’t”.
The actual fact is not only is what Pope Francis has said consistent with what previous Popes have said but it consistent with orthodox Catholic belief.
Well if that’s the case why is the NYT spinning the Pope otherwise? The answer is quite simple.
The top priority for the left right now is the latino vote, They are doing all they can to turn the Latino population into the next great democrat voting block, there however is a problem, said population is heavily Catholic and absolutely LOVES Francis the first Latino Pope to the point where an attack on the Pope is consider an attack on them.
Therefore the last thing the left needs is for prominent white liberals attacking this pope, particularly in the media.
Thus the spin serves three purposes:
First it’s to deceive lazy liberals both inside & outside the media who have very little experience or knowledge of the Catholic Church that Francis is something other than what he actually is, an orthodox Catholic Priest the media
Second it allows said media members to pretend that caring for the poor and the needy has not always been a priority for the church when in fact the Catholic church has both now and in the past fed , clothed, educated more people than any other organization in the history of history, and that’s not even counting treating the sick, caring for the dying and visiting those in prison.
Third (and this is their favorite part) by spinning the Pope they can persuade lazy conservatives who for some reason take the MSM at their word in this case, to attack said Pope causing the very reaction that they are trying to avoid in their own groups.
That so many of us are falling for this is an exercise in absolutely foolishness. Particularly when we have gems like this we could be talking about:
Pope Francis: First of all, why this intervention of mine at the conference of the popular movements? It was the second one. The first was held in the Vatican, in the old synod hall. There were more or less 120 people. It is something that (the Pontifical Council of) Justice and Peace organizes, but I am close to this because it is a phenomenon in the whole world, in the whole world, also in the East, in the Philippines, in India, in Thailand. These are movements that organize among themselves, not just to protest but to move forward, to be able to live, and they are movements that have strength. These people, and there are many, many of them, don’t feel represented by the unions because they say that unions now are a corporation and they do not struggle – I am simplifying a bit – but the idea of many people is that they don’t fight for the rights of poorest. The Church cannot be indifferent. The Church has a social doctrine, and dialogues with these movements, and dialogues well. You saw it. You saw the enthusiasm of feeling that the Church is not far from us, the Church has a doctrine that helps us in the struggle with this. It is a dialogue. It is not that the Church has an option for the anarchic way. No, they not anarchists. They work. They try do many jobs, even connected with waste, the things that are left behind. They are real workers. That is the first thing, the importance of this.
Yes you read that right, that’s the pope saying people don’t feel represented by unions because they’re out for themselves.
The Holy Father said this last week, so ask yourself a question:
Is this the first time you have heard this and if so WHY?
I think that’s an excellent question, and I’ve just given you the answer.
One of the things that can be really frustrating about being a public conservative is the way the media spins a headline to attack. Sometimes a man deserves it, sometimes not but if you’re a conservative you can be sure that a headline in the media will be spun to attack you.
The Bernie Sanders Archive Is Bustling With Mysterious Young Men
Now I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that in a Democratic primary with a large quantify of black & hispanic americans who might not be as in love with homosexuality as the Hollywood left a Democratic organ that will likely support Hillary Clinton might use a headline like this.
Wow. Did you give any actual thought to your choice of the headline and photo for this article?
The photo is of Sen. Sanders, with his arms around two young boys. The headline reads, “The Bernie Sanders Archive is Bustling with Mysterious Young Men.” You do realize the unfounded, and terrible, implication of this combination, don’t you?
The photo doesn’t even have anything to do with the content of the article which is about interns digitizing boxes and boxes of content from Sanders’ time as mayor. Did the editor and writer get lazy coming up with the headline and photo for this article or this is a hatchet job? Either way, it sure isn’t good journalism.
The piece itself is pretty good and worth a read, and in fairness a writer often doesn’t pick the title or the photo for a piece, but how many people will even bother to go beyond that headline and photo?
So welcome Bernie Sanders to the land of being treated like a Conservative but don’t despair, once you either lose the Democrat nomination (or win it) the media, the pols and all of those who are right now making interesting implications will suddenly remember how much they love you and reserve this treatment to people like us.
And Ann Althouse (not really a conservative) put the final nail in the coffin:
I know, you’re going to say, why are you surprised? It’s the New York Times. Why do you even read it? But put the usual reflexive retorts aside for a moment and take a look at how bad this example is. It’s a news report, not an opinion piece, and it assumes, over and over, that Pao is the victim of sexism (even though her downfall had to do with her involvement in the firing of another woman):
Of course this was possible because we were paying attention as this story developed in the first place. July 3rd:
The hugely popular link-sharing site is in a state of virtual lockdown after the volunteers who run some of the site’s biggest communities (known as “subreddits”) went on the digital equivalent of a general strike. This followed the sacking of Victoria Taylor, a popular site admin, after a Reddit Q&A with the Rev. Jesse Jackson went badly for the activist preacher.
High-traffic subreddits dedicated to movies, gaming, videos, history, science and art have been voluntarily locked by their moderators as an act of protest against the decision, which they saw as a symptom of an increasingly overbearing management that takes its users and volunteer moderators for granted.
End result? Informed bloggers destroy the NYT attempt to spin the events at Reddit. They’re exposed to anyone willing to read the facts.
The NYT also tried to spin another event, the Pope’s visit to south America. They start with a Headline that’s a doozy:
In Fiery Speeches, Francis Excoriates Global Capitalism
Note the word “fiery” boy he must be really hitting capitalism HARD. Then look at the text inside
His speeches can blend biblical fury with apocalyptic doom. Pope Francis does not just criticize the excesses of global capitalism. He compares them to the “dung of the devil.” He does not simply argue that systemic “greed for money” is a bad thing. He calls it a “subtle dictatorship” that “condemns and enslaves men and women.”
Ooh that’s a big first paragraph Francis must really be saying something strong here, maybe in the rest we’ll hear the words of the Pope to see what he is saying.
Ah but it ‘s the new york times, so instead of the Pope words in context in the next 23 paragraphs we get a lot of quotes from left wing theologians on the Pope and stuff like this:
The French economist Thomas Piketty argued last year in a surprising best-seller, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” that rising wealth inequality is a natural result of free-market policies, a direct challenge to the conventional view that economic inequalities shrink over time. The controversial implication drawn by Mr. Piketty is that governments should raise taxes on the wealthy.
Huh? What is That doing in a News story about the Pope?
Fortunately as I noted last week there is a page at the Vatican that has the Pope’s actual speeches from his trip sermons available online so I decided to find this spot where the Pope is talking about Capitalism as the “dung of the devil” and what do you know? It turns out it’s not quite the type of thing the Times makes it out to be: (all emphasis mine)
And behind all this pain, death and destruction there is the stench of what Basil of Caesarea – one of the first theologians of the Church – called “the dung of the devil”. An unfettered pursuit of money rules. This is the “dung of the devil”. The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home, sister and mother earth.
Now greed and lust for money as evil is one of the basic teachings of the church since the time of Christ and every single Pope of the last 50 years has discussed it. Francis goes on:
Secondly, you are sowers of change. Here in Bolivia I have heard a phrase which I like: “process of change”. Change seen not as something which will one day result from any one political decision or change in social structure. We know from painful experience that changes of structure which are not accompanied by a sincere conversion of mind and heart sooner or later end up in bureaucratization, corruption and failure. There must be a change of heart. That is why I like the image of a “process”, processes, where the drive to sow, to water seeds which others will see sprout, replaces the ambition to occupy every available position of power and to see immediate results. The option is to bring about processes and not to occupy positions. Each of us is just one part of a complex and differentiated whole, interacting in time: peoples who struggle to find meaning, a destiny, and to live with dignity, to “live well”, and in that sense, worthily.
What? Did I just hear Francis warn about bureaucratization and corruption It can’t be. The NYT didn’t say a word about it!
As members of popular movements, you carry out your work inspired by fraternal love, which you show in opposing social injustice. When we look into the eyes of the suffering, when we see the faces of the endangered campesino, the poor laborer, the downtrodden native, the homeless family, the persecuted migrant, the unemployed young person, the exploited child, the mother who lost her child in a shootout because the barrio was occupied by drugdealers, the father who lost his daughter to enslavement…. when we think of all those names and faces, our hearts break because of so much sorrow and pain. And we are deeply moved, all of us…. We are moved because “we have seen and heard” not a cold statistic but the pain of a suffering humanity, our own pain, our own flesh. This is something quite different than abstract theorizing or eloquent indignation. It moves us; it makes us attentive to others in an effort to move forward together. That emotion which turns into community action is not something which can be understood by reason alone: it has a surplus of meaning which only peoples understand, and it gives a special feel to genuine popular movements.
What are we hearing about the Pope talking about violence of Drug dealers and human traffickers? This could be a speech given in Detroit?
And as he is wont to do the Pope talks about the persecution of Christians:
The Church, her sons and daughters, are part of the identity of the peoples of Latin America. An identity which here, as in other countries, some powers are committed to erasing, at times because our faith is revolutionary, because our faith challenges the tyranny of mammon. Today we are dismayed to see how in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world many of our brothers and sisters are persecuted, tortured and killed for their faith in Jesus. This too needs to be denounced: in this third world war, waged peacemeal, which we are now experiencing, a form of genocide – I insist on the word – is taking place, and it must end.
Funny the times piece didn’t have that bit in it did they?
In every sector of society, but above all in public service, there is a need to reaffirm that dialogue is the best means of promoting the common good, on the basis of a culture of encounter, respect and acknowledgment of the legitimate differences and opinions of others. In the effort to overcome a spirit of constant conflict, unity is always better than conflict; convictions born of ideology or partisan interest should blend advantageously with love of the country and its people. That love must be the incentive to increased administrative transparency and unceasing efforts to combat corruption. I know that today there exists a firm desire to root out corruption.
Dear friends, in the desire to serve and promote the common good, the poor and needy have to be given priority of place. Paraguay has done much to advance along the path of economic growth. Important steps have been taken in the areas of education and health care. May all social groups work to ensure that there will never again be children without access to schooling, families without homes, workers without dignified employment, small farmers without land to cultivate, or campesinos forced to leave their lands for an uncertain future. May there be an end to violence, corruption and drug trafficking. An economic development which fails to take into account the weakest and underprivileged is not an authentic development. Economic progress must be measured by the integral dignity of persons, especially the most vulnerable and helpless.
Again the Pope talks about transparency and corruption in Government it’s something he keeps going back to:
I offer a word of encouragement to all who work at this center: to the administrators, the police officials and all the personnel. You carry out a vital public service. You have an important responsibility for facilitating the process of reintegration. It is your responsibility to raise up, not to put down, to restore dignity and not to humiliate; to encourage and not to inflict hardship. This means putting aside a mentality which sees people as “good” or “bad”, and instead trying to focus on helping others. And the mindset of wanting to help each person will also save you from every form of corruption and will improve conditions for everyone. In so doing, it will give us dignity, motivate us, and make us all better people.
This is the logic of discipleship, it is what the Holy Spirit does with us and in us. We are witnesses of this. One day Jesus saw us on the side of the road, wallowing in our own pain and misery, our indifference. Each one knows his or her past. He did not close his ear to our cries. He stopped, drew near and asked what he could do for us. And thanks to many witnesses, who told us, “Take heart; get up”, gradually we experienced this merciful love, this transforming love, which enabled us to see the light. We are witnesses not of an ideology, of a recipe, of a particular theology. We are not witnesses of that. We are witnesses to the healing and merciful love of Jesus. We are witnesses of his working in the lives of our communities.
Funny the Pope talked about Jesus & Mary in every speech he gave but the words “Jesus” & “Mary” come up with 0 results in a search of that NYT piece.
Well that’s OK after all if we aren’t going to let the NYT spin us on Ellen Pao we’re certainly quite prepared to challenge the NYT spin of the Pope’s words here:
Red Francis Calls Capitalism “Dung of the Devil” …Here Is The Truth
Or perhaps not.
God, please save your Church from this ignorant lunatic. Red Francis blasted global capitalism in his speeches this week in Latin America.
This is Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit who normally would fact check the NYT if they told him the St. Louis Cardinals played in St. Louis
The Communist pope called capitalism the “dung of the devil.”
Seriously Jim? Not one link to the actual speeches of the Pope not one full paragraph of the Pope taken in context, not one even snarky line about the “Paper of Record” not noticing the Pope talking about the Saints, or Mary or even bothering to say the word “Jesus” once. Nope, the NYT has spoken so those are the facts. There is nothing more to be said.
And because nobody is bothering to check the Times not only do we get a bad piece based upon their spin but we get a comments section even worse.[sic]
its like there is strict reuired classes for high up politicians and religious figures. They all spout the same lines about gay communist muslim trance talk.
ok class this is gay communist muslim 101, and im sorry to say that only a quarter of you passed the “how unbelievable fruity can you get” questions, youre going to have to try to be gayer, i mean really stratosphere gay.
you all got the communists need to murder everyone questions, and islam ……well since we cant say “islam” anywhere even in print, you all passed. Just kill everything is pretty much the norm, oh and be gay.
francis however passed the im the gayest and fruityiest polesmoker questions with such swishy flair, im really impressed. Now if we can really place this pillowbiter really high up.
Good job gayest communist muslim francis., youre on your way to fame and fortune.
How many of these people would be up in arms if the Times tried to spin them this way on another issue.
So given this incongruity let me close with one loud expression of frustration:
Am I the only conservative left in the world who sees something seriously wrong here?
I swear stuff like this makes me need another week of PINTASTIC just to recover from it.