George Bailey:  Look, I think maybe you better not mention getting your wings around here.
Clarence:  Why? Don’t they believe in angels?
George Bailey:  A… Yeah, they believe in angels.
Clarence:  Oh, oh! Why should they be surprised when they see one?

It’s a Wonderful Life 1946

Time Magazine is absolutely breathless about this story:

Pope Francis will have lunch on Saturday with some 90 inmates at a prison near Naples, including some that reportedly come from a ward housing gay, transgender and HIV-infected inmates.

You have to read the story a bit farther to get to this bit

The prisoners were chosen via raffle from the facility’s 1900 inmates,writes David Gibson, a top Vatican watcher at Religion News Service. Pope Francis intends to greet each prisoner after a short and simple meal, Vatican Radio reports.

The most telling part of this story to me is the tone.  It appears Time believes this is a departure from what a priest does.  Perhaps if they were a bit more familiar with scripture like this:

When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’  And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’

Matt 25:39-40

Or this:

The Pharisees and their scribes complained to his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” Jesus said to them in reply, “Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do. I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners.”

Luke 5:30-32

Or maybe even this

Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”  She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more.”

John 8:10-11

they would be less surprised but from reading that article one would think from their excitement that instead Priests spend all their time pointing at sinners and shouting Unclean! Unclean!

I think they need to be educated, cue Michael Kelly from the 2010 Catholic Men’s Conference in Worcester:

This was true long before Pope Francis was born and will be true long after he dies, however that doesn’t serve any narrative that Time or the MSM would care to discuss

 

 

One thing about online polls they are designed to draw hits to your website but apparently.  This is why Time Magazine has an annual poll of which word should be banned.

Unfortunately for them, they didn’t like the people being drawn to their website such polls

TIME apologizes for the execution of this poll; the word ‘feminist’ should not have been included in a list of words to ban. While we meant to invite debate about some ways the word was used this year, that nuance was lost, and we regret that its inclusion has become a distraction from the important debate over equality and justice.

–Nancy Gibbs

Or more accurate according to Time’s customer base which is apparently confined to the MSM and people who want to control the clothing decisions of scientists objected

One might think that in the magazine era you would want to grow your customer base of course if you kick potential new customers in the teeth their arne’t likely to come back.

Someone might want to send Ms. Gibbs & company a season or two of Ramsey’s Kitchen Nightmares to watch. If there is one thing that she could learn from it is this. Refusing to change for the sake of a shrinking customer base is a sure-fire way to see your business die.

Craig:  …his weight with the commoners could unbalance everything. The Balliols will kiss his ass, so we must.

Braveheart 1995

He’s obviously a nice man, therefore a dangerous man. We don’t want nice men in the Vatican.

Richard Dawkins on Pope Francis

On the old Get Smart TV series  there was a character called Simon the Likable played by talented comedian Jack Gilford.  Simon was a KAOS agent described by the Chief thus:

That man is the most ruthless cunning evil and treacherous KAOS agent in the entire world… …and a heck of a nice guy

Simon was so likable that people could simply not resist him.  There is a famous scene where the Chief moves forward to arrest him and instead asks for a wallet sized picture of him to keep.

That’s all I could think of when I heard the news of Pope Francis being named Time Magazine’s Person of the year.

At a time when the limits of leadership are being tested in so many places, along comes a man with no army or weapons, no kingdom beyond a tight fist of land in the middle of Rome but with the immense wealth and weight of history behind him, to throw down a challenge. The world is getting smaller; individual voices are getting louder; technology is turning virtue viral, so his pulpit is visible to the ends of the earth. When he kisses the face of a disfigured man or washes the feet of a Muslim woman, the image resonates far beyond the boundaries of the Catholic Church.

Now there is no question that Pope Francis is an excellent choice, but when you read the long article about their winner it’s almost as if they choose him not because is a faithful shepherd of the Catholic faith, but despite it:
Part of the conservative critique is that Francis’ words and gestures cannot be fully reconciled with the legacy of previous Popes. Apparently aware of that potential for controversy, Francis has been skillfully citing the writings of former Pontiffs, stressing continuity. As the first Pontiff to be ordained a priest after Vatican II, he has been generous to the opinions of John XXIII, who convened that reformist council. But it is a delicate task given that Francis has one thing no Pope has had since the 15th century: a living predecessor. While Benedict resides in quiet retirement in the Vatican Gardens, he remains a potential rallying point for those who fear that Francis may hold the doctrinal reins too loosely. So far, Francis and Benedict appear to get on well: both men flatter each other, and Francis was especially generous with quotations from Benedict in his recent exhortation. In any case, Francis needs to keep his predecessor on his side, for it was Benedict who codified the conservative views of John Paul II, the hero of many Catholics, particularly those on the right of the spectrum.

Of course we shouldn’t discount the certainty of high sales for an issue featuring Pope Francis on the cover, particularly in the Latin community in their decision but that last paragraph is the key.  The press has done all they can to convince themselves, evidence to the contrary not withstanding , that this Pope is something other than what he actually is.  Like the Nobel committee that essentially gave Barack Obama a peace prize for not being George Bush, the left in general has been celebrating Pope Francis for not being Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict.  This selection, Francis’ lifelong accomplishments aside,  brings that to mind.

But the truth is, if you consider the church your enemy (like Dawkins) this is another in a long line of disastrous positive media coverage of this Pope.  The time will come where the left will simply not be able to tolerate Francis’ message and will demand the Media pivot before his My Chcemy Boga moment arrives.

In fact even in this writeup Time prepares for the moment that is to come:

It is important to remember that Francis has been Pope for less than a year, and a papacy can change character in midstream. In 1846, Pope Pius IX came to the throne as the great hope to liberalize Catholicism but by the end of his pontificate had become the great champion of conservatism—the font of infallibility and angry confrontation with secular powers like the newborn Italian state. The entrenched dynamics of the church can transform the would-be transformer.

When the left finally turns it will not be an outcry against the first Latin American Pope, it will be a sigh of disappointment that the Church was just too strong and changed him.

The Irony?  Francis would agree, he would say that the love of Christ has changed him and will do his best to assist Christ and the Holy Spirit to make that change throughout the entire world.

There are two polls I checked out before leaving the hotel today, both had bad news for the GOP but beyond that there is nothing else in common.

One is the WBUR poll on the Brown Warren Race. The WBUR poll shows a big swing toward Warren, now up by 5.

I’ve looked at the internals of the WBUR poll and as always they are spot on.

Although I want Scott Brown to win, this poll pleases me, Brown has made some big mistakes in the air war (more on that tomorrow) and hopefully this poll will cause him to pivot to a better strategy, the one that gave him the lead in the first place.

You can’t correct a problem unless you know it’s there, this poll informs the Brown campaign of a problem and thus is useful

I like that!

While I like the WBUR poll I absolutely LOVE the Time Magazine poll in Ohio showing Obama up 5.

You might ask: “DaTechGuy have you gone roadtrip crazy? Why would you love a poll showing Romney losing Ohio?”

Simple I looked at the internals of this poll. Unlike most polls the partisan splits are not as obvious, you have to do some math but it’s really quite simple.

They polled 783 people in the unweighed sample 290 Democrats, 220 Republicans and 224 independent. That comes out to a sample that is Dem 37.0% GOP 28.0 and 28.6 Ind That’s D+9

With 742 total respondents you have 273 Dems, 206 GOP and 215 independents that’s a split of 36.7% dems, 27.7% GOP and 28.9 Ind. Again a D+9 split

As Ohio is a +1 GOP state on registration this indicates the MSM has gone back to the “spin the polls” business to keep their people on the registration.

I’m delighted by this, it means the Obama campaign and the MSM has decided there is no way to reverse these numbers short of simple propaganda, this means they will not change their strategy and this race is finished.

Either that or the left is in denial, that’s exactly where I want them to be.

Closing note. In the studio on Morning Joe, Joe & Mika and the Panel are all hanging their hats on the Time Magazine poll, but Chuck Todd in Ohio hedged. Joe & Mika are opinion folk, they can afford to take a side, but Chuck Todd is the chief WH guy, he can’t look a fool

Mitt Romney is going to win this election and it’s not going to be close.

In Time Magazine Mark Halperin handicaps the 2012 republican nomination. Forgetting that there is no actual scientific way to measure these things there are three points I’d like to note:

1. The Mike Huckabee announcement automatically makes this graphic obsolete.

2. Assuming his bookmaking is correct (it’s not) If the odds of Mitt Romney’s nomination are 3-1 that means there is one chance in three that he will win the nomination, conversely that means there are 2 chances in 3 that he will not. Michael Graham will be pleased.

3. Any chart that shows Jon Huntsman in the top 5 (now top four) republicans to win the nomination is not to be taken seriously.

These points concerning the latest attempt to spin this election are all important, but the most important points concern who is missing from this chart and who is at the bottom of the list. Open up the Graphic in another tab and look at it again.

Rule one in the MSM is strong republican women have to be marginalized or mocked and ridiculed. Note that the strong republican woman on the list are put at the very bottom. This is highly necessary, we can’t have anyone thinking that the GOP might be thinking of nominating a woman let alone a strong one.

Note also that the more conservative the candidate, the farther down the list. Can’t suggest that a conservative might win the nomination, have to discourage that kind of thought.

And finally note who isn’t even included, the Republican candidate who has made the most splash lately in campaigning and in debates. Herman Cain! We don’t dare mention Cain, or show Cain or give any odds on Cain. What would the readers of Time Magazine or the viewers of Morning Joe say if the it was admitted that a Black Republican, who unlike the current president has an actual record of accomplishing things before he ran, is a GOP base favorite? It would not only mess up the template but it would bring out the racists on the democratic side who would populate the comment sections of these stories with cries of “Uncle Tom” or “Oreo” etc etc etc. Can’t let the public see democrats for what they are.

The bottom line, this graphic and these odds are simply a democratic wet dream, it has the same purpose as this tweet I saw this morning:

Yet another declaration of GOP impotence. What is it for, to try to convince the GOP and the base that we can’t win. With President Obama at the top of their ticket their best chance for victory is to demoralize us because they don’t have a record of success to run on and the one signature success this crowd has managed invokes memories not only of another president but of policies that they abhor.

This is all Psi-ops and bluff, considering the realities that’s all they have. Our best response?


Ride right through them, They’re demoralized as hell!

Update: Stacy Links and tweets and says:

Don’t outsource your political thinking to a bunch of know-it-all pundits.

Don’t fall for the Psi-ops.

Update: Et Tu Fox?

If people want to know why magazines like Time are no longer trusted it’s because of stuff like this.

Holiday Blizzard: More Signs of Global Warming

Gateway pundit reminds us of the comment of the founder of the Weather Channel:

The founder of the Weather Channel called global warming “the greatest scam in history” and accused the global media of colluding with ‘environmental extremists’ to alarm the public.

The story is labeled under “green” the only thing green about this nonsense is the amount of dough they are trying to extort from taxpayers

Victor Davis Hanson is a bit of a scholar so how bad does an article have to be for him to say this:

I know it’s commonplace to read in the latest issue of Time or Newsweek that Obama is a god, that Islamophobic Americans are collectively prejudiced against Muslims, that the response after 9/11 was overblown and unnecessary (over 30 subsequent terrorist plots have been foiled, and, for some reason, renditions, tribunals, Guantanamo, Predators, intercepts, etc., have all been embraced by the Obama administration), but the recent Time piece on Israel by a Karl Vick is probably the most anti-Semitic essay I have ever read in a mainstream publication.

And it’s not like there is no competition out there. I’m presuming he is referring to the full article but would like to know if that’s the case.

All that’s missing is “I’ll have my bond“.

Hey Victor I sent a Resume to Time maybe they’ll hire a conservative blogger or two and then change their ways….sometime before the next century.

Some things are just so ridiculous on their face that you can’t believe a prominent journalist actually said it:

“They [Israel] haven’t had a car bombing in two and a half years and the sad truth, really, is that the wall with the West Bank has actually worked.

Am I to understand that it is a regrettable thing that the wall to the west has prevented large amounts of Jews from living in fear and dying in violent slaughter? Time magazine has more:

Now observing 2½ years without a single suicide bombing on their territory, with the economy robust and with souls a trifle weary of having to handle big elemental thoughts, the Israeli public prefers to explore such satisfactions as might be available from the private sphere, in a land first imagined as a utopia. “Listen to me,” says Eli Bengozi, born in Soviet Georgia and for 40 years an Israeli. “Peace? Forget about it. They’ll never have peace. Remember Clinton gave 99% to Arafat, and instead of them fighting for 1%, what? Intifadeh.”

Does it occur to anyone that the wall actually provided peace. The Jews aren’t (and never were) interested in killing “Palestinians”, and thanks to the wall the “Palestinians” who apparently still want to kill Jews instead of you know having a life, can’t get to them.

As long as Arabs in general and “Palestinians” in particular consider dead Jews one of their favorite things you can’t have official peace, but if Palestinians can’t kill Jews, you will have defacto peace which apparently offends some on the left to no end.

The “Palestinians” elites hate it too, because with even defacto peace comes the responsibility to govern, and perhaps the reduction of the international welfare that has allowed the PLO leadership to line their pockets while ignoring their people for years.

Bottom line as long as “Palestinians” areas are Judenrein they are not interested in peace and we should stop pretending they are.

will decide to push this tidbit?

Rush Limbaugh has been a rare voice arguing that the spill — he calls it “the leak” — is anything less than an ecological calamity, scoffing at the avalanche of end-is-nigh eco-hype.

Well, Rush has a point. The Deepwater explosion was an awful tragedy for the 11 workers who died on the rig, and it’s no leak; it’s the biggest oil spill in U.S. history. It’s also inflicting serious economic and psychological damage on coastal communities that depend on tourism, fishing and drilling. But so far — while it’s important to acknowledge that the long-term potential danger is simply unknowable for an underwater event that took place just three months ago — it does not seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage. “The impacts have been much, much less than everyone feared,” says geochemist Jacqueline Michel, a federal contractor who is coordinating shoreline assessments in Louisiana.

Stacy McCain has a long memory:

Mother Earth is a lot more resilient than environmentalists give her credit for. I remember the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969 — a horrible thing, but Santa Barbara today is as lovely a place as you’d ever want to visit and I’m not aware that there is any residual damage from that spill.

and has fun with undeniable truth of life 24 but the one that is actually applicable is #6 from the updated list.

The Earth’s eco-system is not fragile.

Will we see this mentioned on Morning Joe? Likely not today, but it could happen tomorrow. I’ll keep an eye on it.

Update: Memeorandum thread here.

Rick Stengel gives this as the solution to promote other energy. Higher energy taxes that will solve everything and this is the time to pass it while the crisis is in play.

Amazingly nobody on the Morning Joe set challenged him on this.

Well once Newsweek is dead and buried (unless Rush buys it and makes it a conservative journal but apparently the post won’t allow it) maybe all twelve readers can head on over to Time Magazine to keep their bottom line healthy.

Hey if MSNBC can survive in a niche market I’m sure Time can too.

I will give Stengel credit for admitting that panic over three mile island set back the Nuclear industry in the US by decades contributing to our problems.