Lies, Stupid Lies and Even Worse Apologies

As usual, a ridiculous situation has reminded me of one of the Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey. This time the ridiculous thing is the whole apology after the Brian Williams helicopter lie, the lie which seems to resemble the Dan Rather Bush lie, the Lena Dunham rape lie, the AP Irish nuns lie, etc. Here's the Deep Thought (source):

I guess I kinda lost control, because in the middle of the play I ran up and lit the evil puppet villain on fire. No, I didn't. Just kidding. I just said that to help illustrate one of the human emotions, which is freaking out. Another emotion is greed, as when you kill someone for money, or something like that. Another emotion is generosity, as when you pay someone double what he paid for his stupid puppet.

Like I said, ridiculous. But no less ridiculous than the Brian Williams apology. Full Text (source):

On this broadcast last week, in an effort to honor and thank a veteran who protected me and so many others after a ground-fire incident in the desert during the Iraq War invasion, I made a mistake in recalling the events of twelve years ago. . . . I want to apologize. I said I was traveling in an aircraft that was hit by RPG fire; I was instead in a following aircraft. We all landed after the ground-fire incident and spent two harrowing nights in a sandstorm in the Iraq desert. This was a bungled attempt by me to thank one special veteran, and by extension, our brave military men and women, veterans everywhere, those who have served while I did not. I hope they know they have my greatest respect, and also now my apology.

Wwwwwoooooooowwwwwww.... Where is Michael Bloomberg when you need him?

It's what is really impressive to me, saying you got shot down, and then realizing that you just mis-remembered what actually happened. No one seems to appreciate that a lot of exciting things happen in your awesome life and, gee-whiz, why are they all upset that you can't remember small details? "Hey, I single-handedly fought off nine black-belts in that bar fight, and everyone is upset that I said it was ten! Like I was trying to exaggerate. Man, give me a break."

You have to wonder if they learn this in journalism school. I'm pretty sure they do, and they practice on town floozies in dive bars. I'll bet it works on them sometimes. Veterans on the other hand... not so much.

Looks like 2015 might be another record breaking year for lies, just like 2014.

I'm surprised a bunch of change didn't fall out.

Rod Dreher: decadent Catholicism determined Super Bowl outcome

A screen capture (because Drehery revisionism is well documented) from this post, which goes on to explain the Catholic practices exposed in this Seattle church which caused the Divine consequences revealed in the title.

Finally, we may be getting to the bottom of something here about why the Pats really won. Not a reprise of Deflategate, not a bad play call, not a Miraculous Vision From Beyond. No, apparently it was really God in His incarnation as Yuri the Fixer throwing the Super Bowl because some Catholics rejoiced in ways professional ex-Catholic Dreher disapproved of which allowed New England to prevail.

If this worries you, just wait for Prophet Dreher's parish by parish inspection of the comparative quality and wholesomeness of your Communion Hosts. And what that portends for your car insurance rates.

"Surrealism at its most annoying"

S.E. Cupp pegs Obama's dhimmi fear with this piece, starting with the title Islamic extremist terrorism: The scourge that Obama dare not name. I like how she begins, comparing the administrations unrealism to French surrealism. Here's the gist:

To the average person, it's pretty clear we're at war with Islamic extremists. Yet, to hear President Obama tell it, we are not technically at war, and even if we are, he wants you to believe religion has little to do with it.

He and his surrogates have repeatedly refused to say the words "Islamic extremism" or "radical Islam" when describing our enemies in groups like Al Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra, ISIS and Boko Haram, just to name a few.

His administration was caught flatfooted last week when White House spokesman Eric Schultz painfully strained to justify negotiating with Taliban, insisting it was not a terrorist group but "an armed insurgency."

Surreal indeed.

Whether linguistic subterfuge or merely semantic nitpicking, it's a curious use of caution from an administration that has repeatedly gotten out over its skis on issues of foreign policy.

The list is long: Al Qaeda's been decimated. ISIS is Al Qaeda's "jayvee" team. Yemen is a success. Benghazi was about a video.

Obama is constantly speaking in brash declaratives about terrorism, and is often subsequently proven wrong. But uttering the words "Islamic extremism" is too reckless?

Here's why I don't hesitate to call Obama a dhimmi.

[T]he White House is not Islam's PR shop. It's up to moderate Muslims to denounce radical Islam. The job of the President is to clearly name our enemies, not play word tricks on the public.

The Obama White House isn't supposed to be Islam's PR shop. But it has been playing that role since his inauguration in this refusal to name the enemy properly and by properly, I mean with the proper noun Islam and its derivatives.

I want to go back and get more of that funky stuff

The obvious seventies rock band beginning with P is Pink Floyd. But frankly I'm sick of 'em. So we gonna do some other stuff to-day, kids.

The Writings of Sistah Raccoon

I have completed the recovery of The Writings of Sistah Raccoon so you may read them once again. No one was killed by those offended by the Topix post, thank God, but it does put me in mind of my Charlie Hebdo post because now it's possible that more people will become familiar with this new ingenious pillorying of Rod Dreher's TAC blog posts than had been before.

There was another bit of good stuff on the disappeared post. Countrylad stated this in defense of our continuing criticism:

Pauli clearly has a bone to pick with Rod and is relentless in pursuing it.

Both Sistah Raccoon and Pauli have a right to say whatever they want on here, as do you. You have the same privilege with regard to their posts as you do to the daily newspaper - If you don't like what they have to say, you don't have to read it.

I responded:

Yes, you are correct. Rod Dreher and I actually have a lot of things in common. We were both born in the same year so we grew up with a lot of the same TV shows. We both grew up in small towns, went to college, became more conservative after college and converted to the Catholic faith in the nineties.

Rod Dreher has many bones to pick and he has been relentless over the years in pursuing these. One is the Catholic Church, one is mainstream conservatives — or what he has called the "mongoloid right"  — and one is the way normal people in American life view everyday life, food and architecture.

The internet not only helps you find something you like, it also helps you find things you detest. Thus I have found Rod, a person who is almost a mirror image of myself — amazingly alike in some ways, drastically different in others. I used to read his blog every day, but over the years I have it less and less because other kindred spirits have found my blog and have done a lot of the research for me, emailing me passages which they know will arouse my ire as it has theirs. But now I probably only react on my blog to these around 1 out of every 5 times, if that.

I have always taken the approach that the best treatment of speech or writing which you believe represents bad ideas is good ideas communicated in speech and writing, correcting what you think is wrong with the other. The exchange allows people to read each and decide.

Sometimes this comes in the way of clownish parodies and ridicule. It is probably the case that I have resorted to these methods too often and, if so, it has no doubt weakened the strength of my own arguments. Insofar as they have affected Rod Dreher at all, the few people who read my amateur copy may be more critical of his ideas when they read them. I have no idea what Mr. Dreher thinks about me or if he thinks about me at all. But certainly no real harm comes to him from anything my friends and I write. It has been reported that hits from his articles and blog posts on the American Conservative are really what keeps the website afloat, so it should be noted that he has both fans and job security galore.

I am highly amused that this post was removed from Topix and I am somewhat curious about the details. It is possible that someone complained that Sistah Raccoon's writings are racist. That might have been the magic word used for the why of the banning. But I'm more interested in the who. Dante book publishing company? Wick Allison? Bueller?

Castles of stone, soul and glory

Incredible performance.

Nunc Dimittis

Notes and translation: This gospel hymn, the Canticle of Simeon, is accompanied by the antiphon Salva nos. Included in the video are two very different representations of The Presentation in the Temple. The chant is sung by the Cistercian monks of Stift Heiligenkruez. The text and translation are as follows:

Salva nos, Domine, vigilantes, custodi nos
dormientes, ut vigil emus cum Christo et requiescamus in pace.
Nunc dimittis servum tuum, Domine, secundum verbum tuum in pace:
Quia viderunt oculi mei salutare tuum
Quod parasti ante faciem omnium populorum:
Lumen ad revelationem gentium, et gloriam plebis tuae Israel.

Save us, O Lord, while we are awake, and guard us
when we sleep, that we may watch with Christ and rest in peace.
Now Thou dost dismiss Thy servant, O Lord, according to Thy word in peace;
Because my eyes have seen Thy salvation,
Which Thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples:
A light to the revelation of the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel.

"Morally shameful"

I agree with Mr. Wehner that it is shameful how hostile President Obama and his administration are toward our country's greatest ally in the Middle East. The man bows to other world leaders and lets them cross "red lines" without repercussions. But Israel draws his rage and his snubs. Excerpt:

But the problem goes much deeper than a personality clash. President Obama is, quite simply, anti-Israel. In every conceivable situation and circumstance, the president and his aides give the benefit of the doubt not to Israel but to its enemies. This despite the fact that Israel is among America’s longest and best allies, democratic, lawful, takes exquisite steps to prevent civilian deaths in nations committed to destroying it, and has made extraordinary sacrifices for peace. No matter; the pressure that’s applied is always applied most against Israel–even when, as in last year’s conflict with Hamas, Israel was the victim of lethal attacks.

This is morally shameful. In a world filled with despotic leaders and sadistic and ruthless regimes–North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Eritrea, Sudan, Somalia, and on and on–which nation alone does Mr. Obama become “enraged” at? Which is the object of his disdain? Which provokes his white-hot anger?

Answer: Israel. Has it struck you, as it has struck me, that with every other nation, including the most repressive and anti-American on earth, Mr. Obama is careful never to give offense, to always extend the olive branch, and to treat their leaders with unusual deference and respect? Except for the Jewish State of Israel. It always seems to be in the Obama crosshair.

Open Comment Thread (2015-02)

New open comment thread for Feb 2015. Can't believe we already burnt January....