Senator Rand Paul Exposes Doctor Fauci

Oh, we're really going to fall for that...

We know Rod Dreher lies, and Keith's example is merely the latest evidence. His greatest example of long-form lying is his ridiculous narrative of why he left the Catholic Church. But, to paraphrase somebody, there be lies, dang lies and utter bullcrap:

United Airlines, the New York Stock Exchange, and the Wall Street Journal aren’t the only organizations that have encountered technical turbulence lately: on Tuesday an item was incorrectly published on Noah Millman’s blog due to an error in our system. The problem has now been fixed, and we apologize to Noah and to our readers for the mix-up.

You can find Noah’s latest posts here at: The Necessity of Greece’s Separation and Obergefell and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Hat Tip goes to Virgil —thanks man. (I'll continue writing when everyone is done laughing.)

OK, it was technical turbulence, everybody. When's the last time you heard the word turbulence? Did you end up landing at the wrong airport? Because that's what tech turbulence does to the American Conservative's website.

"Spock, report."

"Captain: it appears that the entire electro-magnetic structure of Mr. Millman's article has transformed and undergone a mitotic reflex changing it from a criticism of Rod Dreher's Benedict Option to two separate articles entirely, one of which is a futile attempt to assign logic to Justice Kennedy's Obergefell decision."

 

"Any guesses on why this happened?"

"It is possible that the Klingons did this in order to distract people from their attacks on United Airlines, the New York Stock Exchange, and the Wall Street Journal."

Yeah, yeah... me and my wife, Morgan Fairchild, are really buying this story. And I thought I was joking comparing Dreher to Hillary. That should learn me. Earth to Rod, earth to Rod: it's not the crime, it's the cover-up. Ever hear that one?

But you have to admit that lying is so, so much easier than answering criticism with reasoned arguments. That is if you don't mind losing your remaining credibility. This shouldn't affect TAC readership one bit. They will keep giving out what their readers love. In shovelfuls.

The so-called Benedict Option, which is neither of Benedict nor is it an option, will not stand for criticism.

I think I'll end with a little inversion of I Cor. 13:4-7 which might apply.

The BenOp is impatient, the BenOp is unkind to the doubtful and is envious of better ideas; the BenOp brags arrogantly that no one understands it, it secures its own oxygen mask first, it is always provoked, it takes into account every wrong suffered, does not rejoice in the truth, but lies to protect itself; bears nothing, believes we're doomed, hopes to sell books, endures no criticism.

I've preserved Noah Millman's entire original article here. I hope they at least pay him for it.

Rod Dreher's Benedict Option lies

One of the tell-tales of a larger fraud like the fraud with which Rod Dreher is currently trolling Christians with his protean and chimerical Benedict Option is the trail of smaller deceits it leaves like turds along its way.

Rod Dreher addressing Noah Millman's Benedict Option post

One such turdlet of truthlessness is this classic small boy squirmer, one of Dreher's "NFR"s in response to commenter Maxine pressing him on the question his colleague Noah Millman got deleted for asking originally (as usual, because we are dealing with items that have a habit of mysteriously disappearing when they prove embarrassing to Rod Dreher, the screen capture of this comment may be found here):

[NFR: I just now realized that Noah posted today about the Benedict Option. I had not seen that post; I thought you were referring to the post back in May. Noah’s post today has not been deleted; here it is. I will answer those questions. But you know what? I’m really tired of your gripey, hostile attitude. I don’t understand why you read this blog, except for the sake of liberal outrage porn. But I don’t have to waste my time with your constantly kvetchy comments anymore. — RD]

Let's unpack these casual, pathological untruths one by one, shall we?

I just now realized that Noah posted today about the Benedict Option

No, Rod, you didn't. "Today" would have to be July 9, 2015, the date stamp of the post. Google's cached version of Millman's post is two day's earlier on July 7, 2015 at 16:01:33 GMT. You did not realize that Noah posted today about the Benedict Option.

Noah’s post today has not been deleted; here it is.

No, Rod, it has been deleted. Your "here it is" link goes to the same "Not Found" page it has been doing for the last three days now, the same "Not Found" page it has been going to when you declared I have no idea why Noah’s article is not here anymore (screen capture here). You are lying either by saying that it has not been deleted when you know it has, or by attempting to deceive your readership by blindly throwing a link up you calculate few will follow, simply trusting your word about it instead.

But let's be as charitable as possible; after all, no matter Rod Dreher's actual calendar age, it's pretty obvious we are still dealing with the mind of a child habituated to reflexively throwing out any answer he believes might get him off the hook when cornered and confronted by a grownup.

The only way Rod Dreher, self-appointed Christian prophet and impresario of his so-called Benedict Option could be telling the truth is if he has no real knowledge of his TAC colleague Noah Millman's recent and incisive critique of his Benedict Option at all - not when it was originally posted, not that it was deleted, not that it "has not been deleted; "here it is", not what it asks answers to, nothing, nada - , a critique, moreover, that raises, not one, but three questions while quoting from Ross Douthat, a columnist Dreher admires greatly and quotes from frequently himself.

To be innocent of lying Dreher must be entirely innocent of any knowledge of the recent Millman post as well.

We must believe Rod Dreher has had absolutely no interest in this recently deceased Millman piece critical of his Benedict Option, not when it was originally posted on July 7 (or earlier), not that it had been deleted, not that he could as easily have pointed his commenter Maxine to the cached Google version just as we do - none of that.

In a post entitled "Critics of the Benedict Option" constructed of Rod interviewing himself as a way of responding to their questions, our most charitable alternative to seeing Dreher as a childlike, pathological liar is to presume his response to his critics has no real interest in any real world, actual critics asking concise questions, particularly those who work for the same publication he does.

Behold your prophet, fellow Christians. Follow this dissembling little boy at your caprice and at your peril.

Zugwrack

This is an example of why I haven't been wringing my hands about the upcoming synod. It turns out that Cardinal Kasper did some exaggeratin' about the Pope being on board with his proposal of greater complacency mercy towards adulterous couples and homosexuals.

As Arroyo continued to question him, the cardinal appeared to be increasingly exasperated and defensive, and at one point denied that he had made any proposal at all. Responding to Arroyo’s observation that priests were contending with divorcees and even homosexuals who were demanding that they receive Communion because “this is clearly what the pope wants,” Kasper responded: “Well this is a misunderstanding, and first of all, it was a question, and I put the question to open the debate. It’s not a proposal. And therefore, of course a couple can come and want Holy Communion. I spoke about a penitential process, a penitential way, it needs time.”

“But you do understand, when a churchman like yourself, a theologian, an esteemed international figure, a curial official, says ‘here is my proposal and the pope agrees with me,’...”

“Well I did not say that,” retorted Kasper.

“Well you did say, and the quote is: ‘Clearly this is what he wants’ and ‘the pope has approved of my proposal,’” responded Arroyo.

“No, he did not approve my proposal,” the cardinal replied. “The pope wanted that I put the question, and afterwards, in a general way...before all the cardinals. He expressed his satisfaction with my talk, but not in the end, not in the special question. I would not say that he approved the proposal, no, no no.”

"No, no, no." I hope this development doesn't surprise anyone here. Pope Francis condemned "gender ideology" again recently, this time comparing it to the Hitler Youth. Maybe that was a message delivered to the German Cardinal?

Kasper’s new attitude regarding the pope’s position dovetails with the pope’s own increasing public reticence regarding Kasper’s proposal. Following a massive and sustained outcry from clergy and faithful against the proposal, the pope no longer makes statements urging more laxity towards people in illicit unions and has increasingly spoken in favor of traditional marriages, urging larger families and denouncing gender ideology. His statements about the second synod, scheduled for this October, have become increasingly vague, and he has recently hinted that he no longer seeks to give Communion to the divorced and “remarried.”

There are already actions that the Church mercifully makes available to divorced persons. Confession, annulment, and then full communion and the ability to get remarried in the church. No one ever said this was easy.

My advice to Catholics and others: don't strain too hard rubber-necking at the train wreck named Kasper.

Rod Dreher's to-be-fabricated Benedict Option™

Here is the latest on the Obamacare Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ front, about which you will be able to find out what's in it once you pass it take it:

Above, a photo I just took of the books from my library that I have set aside for reading to inform me in the book I plan to write about the Benedict Option. I don’t believe this is an exhaustive list — I need to read Morris Berman, for example — but it is where I stand right now.

You see, when writer Damon Linker sweeps his arm and declares "the religious right is considering an all-out withdrawal from politics" and writer Rod Dreher embraces Linker's sweeping declaration about "our little project", both are lying to the public in the service of artificially fabricating and pushing demand for a strictly commercial writing opportunity they hope will pay ongoing benefits to each of them for years to come.

The very obvious reason why no "religious right", individually, much less as a sweeping whole, can possibly be considering a Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ is that this little chimera, these dashing but invisible imperial pantaloons have yet to even be fabricated - as Rod Dreher explicitly tells you himself, above.

Rod Dreher's own mind is not yet even "informed" about Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ which apparently you should be, and, according to Damon Linker, the entire religious right is already, considering taking.

Plainly speaking, Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ is, at best, only in wistful conceptual product development. Because Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ does not yet exist, entrepreneurial vendor-tailors of invisible, non-existent Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ Emperor's new clothing are irrefutably committing intellectual fraud.

More plainly and simply, Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ is an intellectual scam, specifically an intellectual pigeon drop in which you, the gullible mark, are asked to withdraw and part with your curiosity, your mouse clicks, your eyeballs on adjacent online advertising, and, ideally, the cost of Rod Dreher's book about Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ which he will immediately deliver to you as a greater reward in exchange - just as soon as he reads his book list above, informs his mind, decides what combination of ingredients will sell best to you, the slack-jawed mark, and actually gets around to compiling and writing the thing.

Until that joyous and distant day, however, Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ will only be about you reading about Rod Dreher and Damon Linker and others talking about Rod Dreher continuing to talk about Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™, solely for the sake of someday selling you an opportunistic, pseudo-intellectual consumer product artificially shaped and fabricated by the focus group this sentence just described.

The bottom line is that Rod Dreher is demonstrably, by his own words and actions, a pseudo-intellectual con artist, an eager and unapologetic scammer of the psychologically and spiritually needy and helpless, and Rod Dreher's Benedict Option™ is just the latest in his long line of pseudo-intellectual scams dating back to Crunchy Cons.

If, for whatever reason, you simply cannot live without what Rod Dreher would dearly love to sell you, God bless you and the best of luck to you, but on no uncertain terms understand this:

• No wholesale "religious right" is either preceding you, joining you, or even contemplating doing so, because

• What Rod Dreher is trying to sell you and what you may be so cheerfully eager to buy not only does not yet exist, it is not even yet fully formed in Rod Dreher's own mind.

Now run along and have fun. If you place your spiritual faith in Rod Dreher long enough and have the courage to dig deep enough, there's got to be a pony for you underneath there somewhere. Honest.

Lena Dunham is a rich, white, Tawana Brawley

Well of course she'd have to make something up if she never actually was raped. She needs feminist cred to sell books, and since all sex is rape anyway, she just had to pick her least favorite sexual experience and voilà! Instant rape.

Bizarrely, it seems like the "rape" never really took place, or it wasn't really rape. I'm not going to include the graphic details here; you can read them in the Breitbart article. If everything did go down the way she describes, i.e., she wanted to have sex but this guy got too rough, then it's a good illustration of why a 19-year-old woman shouldn't have sex with a stranger she just met. But this wouldn't be "realistic" in the liberal feminist worldview.

This article takes a while to read, but it is worth it to know just how hard Nolte and the Breitbart crew attempted to discover the identity of the rapist. Sadly her naming this person "Barry" indicates an actual person--it is not a pseudonym--and his name is now smeared with a false accusation.

“This man is by all accounts (including his own) innocent.”

Nolte noted that the man now “has to hide his Facebook page and retain an attorney” in the wake of Dunham’s book.

He said that while Dunham has pointed “her powerful finger” at the man accusing him of rape, she “has yet to clear his name.”

Having watched a friend of mine be falsely accused of rape, I would like to see this Barry guy work up some type of libel case against Dunham. I know that it would be pretty hard, but at least it might draw attention to her unreliability and to the fact that Random House is enabling felonious behavior on the part of a powerful individual against a falsely-accused, innocent man.

Please, please use body cams!

I have to agree with one thing that Michael Brown's parents are asking for in the official statement they've released after the grand jury decision to not indict Darren Wilson.

Join with us in our campaign to ensure that every police officer working the streets in this country wears a body camera.

Can you imagine the great footage which will be produced of people goofing up? On camera? Well, you don't have to imagine it, check this out from Conservative Daily:

And of course it will keep the cops honest and behaved. But don't wait until the cams are mandated, guys. Start wearing them now and make sure the word gets out.

Hat tip IJ Review.

Thanks for reading my blog. For current commentary and what-not, visit the Est Quod Est homepage

Ferguson Witness Dorian Johnson Lied

It's OK to lie about what happened at a crime scene because, you know, white people. They're scum; down with 'em! If your lie ends up starting the avalanche whereby your entire town is destroyed... oh well, I guess.

Riots broke out in Missouri this past week in large part based on the eyewitness testimony of Dorian Johnson, who saw his friend Michael Brown shot and killed by local police. According to USA Today, Johnson claims Brown was fleeing and the officer shot him in the back.

According to Johnson, the officer pursued Brown and fired another shot. which struck Brown in the back. He said Brown turned and faced the officer with his hands raised.

However, this testimony contradicts the autopsy report by New York City’s former chief medical examiner, Dr. Michael Baden. Dr. Baden told The New York Times the autopsy found that Brown was struck 6 times — four shots in the right arms and two in the head. The final bullet hit Brown in the top of the head indicating his head was bent forward.

Baden said, “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.”

If you watch the entire USA Today video you see that he isn't just lying, but he's crafted an entirely different story about the events than what most likely happened. Did the policeman really use the F word? Doubtful. Also you have to notice the crocodile tears near the end of the clip. I call fake. This Dorian Johnson character absolutely failed his audition.

Michael Brown's hands were not up

The Daily Caller has the story.

Michael Brown did not have his hands over his head when he was shot by Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson, a self-identified eyewitness told the grand jury investigating Brown’s death.

The eyewitness recounted his firsthand observations to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch late Wednesday after speaking to the grand jury this week. The grand jury’s decision about whether or not to indict Wilson is expected in mid-November.

Brown had his arms at his sides during at least one phase of his confrontation with officer Wilson, but he never raised his hands over his head at any point, according to the witness. Brown continued to approach Wilson against police orders and stood about 20 to 25 feet away from the officer when he was fatally shot, the witness said.

But will this keep the protestors from doing that "hands up don't shoot" chant? Probably not. But hopefully it will take the wind out of their lying sails.

Rand Paul is OK with Abortifacient Drugs

From LifeSite news. Another reason I don't want to support this guy and don't think he merits any consideration as a presidential candidate.

As a doctor, "Rand Paul likely knows that the most likely effect of the high-dose Levonorgestrel-only contraceptive 'Plan B' is abortifacient,” Krista Thomas, communications manager of Human Life International (HLI) told LifeSiteNews. “Though it also has potential effects of thickening of the cervical mucus and prevention of ovulation, let’s face it, this drug is designed to be taken after sex, so the likelihood of these effects stopping pregnancy is very low.”

“Early abortions are its primary, and perhaps only, effect,” she said.

One of the world's leading authorities on the morning after pill – Dr. James Trussell, the director of Princeton’s Office of Population Research – has said that women must be told of the potential for abortion as part of ethical treatment. “To make an informed choice, women must know that [emergency contraceptive pills]…prevent pregnancy primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation and inhibiting fertilization, but may at times inhibit implantation of a fertilized egg in the endometrium,” he wrote.

That was further confirmed by a 2014 report from the Charlotte Lozier Institute that found all forms of emergency contraception, as well as the IUD, can cause an early abortion.

So Doctor Paul Junior is likely lying when he says "Hey, people, chill out. It's a pill, therefore it's just birth control." Great. He is slowly turning into as disagreeable a candidate as his whack-job father.

Wonderful Precision of the Miraculous ObamaCare Signup Number

And polls continue to show the public still hates the law. So despite their cute and loud cheerleaders, their team bites. I hope they lose big.

Biden's Malarkey on Security Requests

Hat tip to Weekly Standard. Josh Rogin shows how Joe Biden was wrong last night when he stated "We did not know they wanted more security [in Libya]." Excerpt:

In fact, two security officials who worked for the State Department in Libya at the time testified Thursday that they repeatedly requested more security and two State Department officials admitted they had denied those requests

"All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources," the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, Eric Nordstrom, testified. "In those conversations, I was specifically told [by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb] ‘You cannot request an SST extension.' I determined I was told that because there would be too much political cost. We went ahead and requested it anyway.

Nordstrom was so critical of the State Department's reluctance to respond to his calls for more security that he said, "For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.

"We felt great frustration that those requests were ignored or just never met," testified Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was leading a security team in Libya until August.

Biden's mantra that the security deficit was all due to budget cuts by the Republican Congress was sickening demagoguery as well.

A lie within a lie

Just got this email from a scammer.

Dear Paul,

I am Mr. Wong Yoke Eng, a legal practitioner. Please be patient and go through the contents of this email very careful which I believe is a message that will be beneficial to the both of us. I am the legal representative to Late Frank Fry. Who herein after shall be referred to as my late client. He died in June 2006 as a result of heart condition.

Basically, my motive of writing you is to assist me secure the funds left behind by my client before it is confiscated or declared unserviceable by the bank where this fund valued at US$6.8 Million Dollars (Six Million, Eight hundred Thousand United State Dollars) was deposited. I have a mandate from the bank to present the next of kin to the deceased or the funds will be confiscated and so far, all my efforts to get hold of someone related to this man has proved abortive.

I want you to consider this proposal. If you grant your consent that I present you to the bank as the next-of-kin and beneficiary of my deceased client (since you have the same last name), so that the proceeds of this account can be transferred to you, then we can share the entire proceeds on a mutually agreed-upon percentage.

All legal documentation to back up your claim as my deceased client's next-of-kin will be provided. All I require is your honest cooperation to enable us see this transaction through.

This entire process will be executed under a legitimate arrangement that will protect you from any breach of the law. However, if this business proposition offends your moral values, do accept my apology. Please contact me at your earliest convenient to indicate your interest.

Best Regards,
Mr. Wong Yoke Eng, Esq.

All he needs is my "honest cooperation" with his deception. Of course, the real deception is that there is no dead rich guy. Obviously, the devil tempts stupid people as well as smart.

If this offends your moral values, send Mr. Wong Yoke Eng, Esq. an email at wongyokeeng@lawyer.com.

Normally I just delete these emails, most of which get trapped in my spam catcher nowadays. But this one reminded me of my favorite film, The Usual Suspects. Among many facets of the film which works on many levels, I like the idea that the problem with a life of crime is that eventually you run into someone really evil.

We sort of knew this

Reports that U.S. soldiers damaged Iraqi antiquities turn out to have been media hype. "Media hype" is nice-speak for lies. Excerpt:

In recently reviewing the Unesco report, which came out after his book, Chaplain Marrero said to me that the cracks in the ancient bas-reliefs were already there when the U.S. came in. He doesn't believe that the helicopter base could have caused any damage because it was "up to two football fields away." The choppers rose vertically upon lift-off and the ancient remains are located in an excavation considerably below ground level.

The accusations about cracks in the paving stones caused by allied tanks rumbling over the Royal Way don't make sense, he says, because it was already encircled by iron railings with no access to vehicles. A narrow pedestrian path outside the railings barely allowed enough room for light Humvees to drive around to keep the area secure.

Finally, he notes that the Unesco report's details of defensive trenches dug by subsequent occupation forces, such as the Polish troops and defense contractors, occurred in areas beyond what was always considered the site proper, even in Saddam's time. It was in those areas, he says, that sandbags were filled with local earth and the ground leveled.

Why do the media always go out of their way to smear the military?

Remember 'transparency'?

Two Kens call on Obama and Pelosi to "come clean". Excerpt:

With both President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, we see the dangers of reckless actions. When the president released those memos, he clearly did not anticipate the widespread outrage that release would generate. Nor did he anticipate the public reemergence of a vice president who is also a former Defense Secretary, and ex-White House chief of staff, a top-notch national security expert and one of the most articulate speakers on the topic.

Likewise, when Speaker Pelosi satisfied her liberal base by vilifying the noble men and women who work to keep America safe at the CIA, she did not anticipate that Leon Panetta, a former fellow Democratic congressman from California and an Obama appointee, would hold a press conference to declare that his officers were telling the truth. Speaker Pelosi hardly expected one of her own colleagues would expose her statements as untrue.

Both Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi promised transparency. We are now only seeing half of the facts on these two important scandals. It’s time for them to provide the whole truth.

The idea that Pelosi was totally against everything which was going on with interrogation is ludicrous. She has overplayed this hand. This truly may be part of Obama's play to get rid of her and replace her with someone as dumb as Joe Biden.

A Must Read for the Gullible

This is kind of stale but boy, do I love John Zmirak's piece on the film Longford from December '08. It's sort of a review/recommendation, but more than anything it's an illustrated condemnation of "misguided compassion". Zmirak quotes Mother Angelica as calling this folly "the reigning sin of our time" and he shows how the character and story presented in the movie gives us a perfect example of this vice. From his article:

Frank Pakenham, the Seventh Earl of Longford, was a kind and pious man. Born a British aristocrat, he flouted public opinion by converting to Catholicism in 1940. An accomplished historian, loving husband, and nurturing father -- one of his many overachieving children is historian Antonia Fraser -- Lord Longford was also active in politics. Long a member of the British House of Lords -- and a convinced socialist -- he led campaigns against pornography and gay activism, in the face of widespread mockery in the press. (It didn't help, I guess, that he insisted on conducting widely publicized fact-finding tours in strip clubs, with journalists in tow. Did I mention that Longford lacked the virtue of prudence?)

Educational reformer, chronicler of the Irish war for independence, visionary moral crusader: For none of these things do Englishmen remember the Earl of Longford. Instead, they know him as the British lord who tried to get Myra Hindley out of jail. Hindley's name is still a watchword for hellish cruelty; she was convicted in 1966 along with her lover Ian Brady for jointly kidnapping, sexually abusing, torturing, and murdering five children -- whose anguished cries they tape-recorded. The Moor Murders, and the subsequent trials, were the media sensation of the middle 1960s, and neither Hindley nor Brady showed remorse at their public trial. The two were sentenced to life in prison.

And that's where poor Longford came in. As a deeply religious Catholic, the Earl made a point of visiting prisoners -- which, you might remember, is one of the Corporal Works of Mercy. What you might also recall from Catechism class is that it nowhere says you have to try to get the prisoners out, assuming they're guilty. That distinction eluded the good Lord Longford, who responded to a letter from Myra Hindley requesting a visit.

As the film depicts their dawning (fawning?) friendship, it is clear that Hindley is a brilliant manipulator, skilled at reading Longford's character and telling him what he most wants to hear: That she is deeply, profoundly sorry for what she did. That she was an abused child, seized and dominated by a strong, sadistic lover, who forced her to take part in the murders. Oh yes, and that she is deeply attracted to Longford's Catholic faith. Would he consider sending her some Catholic books, including her in his prayers, and returning for future visits?

Zmirak goes on to reveal the horrifying and embarrassing results of what he brilliantly describes as the "slow-motion train wreck of the Little Choo-Choo That Could." He states that he favors the death penalty for this noble do-gooder by the end of the film. Although he is possibly exaggerating, Longford seems like a guy who, after pushing an enormous boulder down a mountain, claims that he had no idea that fifty goat-herders would be smashed. In other words, Longford is the kind of moral idiot who really poses a danger within society.

I said at the start I loved this article, and I do for the same reason that I love my Swiss Army knife and my all in one Epson printer. It's designed to take on a number of important jobs and complete them well. First of all, it shows the major attack on the virtue of prudence and how that attack takes shape in our society among the bleeding hearts. I especially like the point that helping the guilty get out of punishment is not a work of mercy.

Secondly, I sense a corollary here that I've seen play out in my life personally, viz., the more prudent one becomes, the more mean one seems to the aforementioned unwisely compassionate in certain situations. For example, if a fairly close in-law's sibling is "dating" an incarcerated pen-pal, starts falling in love with him and talking about marriage, you might be considered mean for stating that you smell a train-wreck. Not that you are told this directly to your face, however, you are told that you don't know this guy and that "...she feels that he really has turned his life around and gotten saved in prison." Then you ask what he's in for. "Well, he hasn't told her that yet, even though she did ask him." Oh. That's when you start feeling like you know this guy a lot better than everyone else involved. The most merciful event in that case was that the in-law got wise in time and called it off.

Thirdly, the argument against capital punishment has been blurred and marred by the fact that many of those fighting it choose the worst poster children. Remember the efforts of left-wing wackos to save Stanley "Tookie" Williams, a convicted multiple murderer who refused to help police whilst penning anti-gang children's books? From Wikipedia:

Williams refused to aid police investigations with any information against his gang, and was implicated in attacks on guards and other inmates as well as multiple escape plots. In 1993, Williams began making changes in his behavior, and became an anti-gang activist while on Death Row in California. Although he continued to refuse to assist police in their gang investigations, he renounced his gang affiliation and apologized for the Crips' founding, while never admitting to the crimes for which he was convicted. He co-wrote children's books and participated in efforts intended to prevent youths from joining gangs.

Not quite a graduate from the St. Mary Magdalene school of repentance, I dare say.

Fourthly, aren't there people out there who need assistance who have never spent a day in jail? I've found plenty of people to help out by various means, finding work for them, just chatting and being friends with them, etc. There are people who are called to prison ministry--obviously Longford was not among them. My guess is that other romantics have fallen prey to wily criminals in much the same way. This story also reminds me of the judge from Tom Sawyer who thinks he's rehabilitated the town drunk, before he's forced to think again. Should have stuck to being judgmental, Your Honor.

Finally, It seems like people tempted to rob justice to pay mercy should take a lesson to the thief on the cross who pointed out to the other other criminal that they deserved punishment. I suppose that St. Dismas was showing us that a lot of the misguided compassion toward which we might be tempted is self-directed.

As the Worm Turns

So the OJ book, If I Did It, will hit the shelves after all. Amazing.

Here's how it happened. Mr Goldman quickly overcame the disgust he expressed publicly last year and realised that the unpublished manuscript of If I Did It was an asset he could legitimately chase as part of Simpson's unpaid legal settlement. In other words, he decided the publicity the book would give Simpson might be less objectionable if the profits went into his pocket, rather than Simpson's. Mr Goldman went to a bankruptcy court to have the rights signed over to him and, in August, won his case. The new edition of If I Did It differs from the original in several key respects. Its authorship is attributed to "the Goldman family" instead of OJ Simpson and it includes new material by members of the Goldman family and the society crime writer, Dominick Dunne. The cover cleverly conceals the word "If" to the point of near-invisibility so, on first glance, the book appears to be called I Did It. The new subtitle, Confessions Of The Killer, rams home the point that Simpson is no longer toying with the idea of having killed his estranged wife and her lover. Rather, he really is confessing to the crime.

The whole thing is still pretty sick, but as a story of chutzpah being met with more chutzpah, Fred Goldman's style is pretty unique. An if a famous football player killed my son and walked, who am I to say that, given the chance, I wouldn't hijack his dumb book project?