As an apt followup to my post about what Black Lives Matter is really all about, this is a short exchange between a journalist who is too limp-wristed to condemn a hateful ideology and a Sheriff, David Clarke, who is not.
Or someone. Well, it would meet NBC standards, wouldn't it?
Let this be a warning to us all. Unless we put a stop to this jeez-you-know-my-resume-could-really-use-a-shot-of-testosterone journalism, all we may be left with is this
Our fave Cub Reporter has posted seven (and counting) pieces in recent days regarding the Rolling Stone piece on the University of Virginia fraternity rape story. Those pieces began with the hook-line-sinker piece entitled "A Fraternity of Rape" but has now closed in on the dangers of shoddy journalism and its defenders. Fair enough -- many (including yours truly) followed the same path as the story waxed and has now waned.
In one of today's pieces, Dreher offers the following analysis:
If you have a reporter or an editor who believes her own activism and therapy is more important than observing basic journalistic standards of diligent fact-checking and fairness, you have a very big problem. ...
However righteous your cause may be, if you allow your passion for it to turn you into this kind of journalist -- which is to say, a propagandist -- then you are a liability to your employer, your profession, and to yourself.
Sound advice, if plenty harsh.
But let's hearken back just a few months, tho, (seems like only yesterday) to the dust-up over another shaky piece of journalism, namely the alleged tossing of the bodies of 800 children into a sewer by nuns. Dreher tosses out McCarthy-like "facts-which-if-true" like this:
If this is true, one concern is that doctors, with the consent of the directors of these homes, allowed illegitimate Irish children to be used as guinea pigs, presumably because in the eyes of the Irish church and Irish society at the time, they lacked full human dignity.
Of course, he followed this up with a bold-type "This has not been proven, but ...". Meaning that the story is fake but accurate, I guess. And here's why it was justified, according to Dreher at the time:
I say in this post that I regret being quick to believe the worst, and I have updated the story all along as more counterinformation has come out. This is a blog. This is how it works. I added in this context as to why it's very easy to believe the worst about the behavior of the Irish church -- not to justify it, but to explain how it happens. It doesn't require "anti-Catholic bias" to expect the worst when it comes to the behavior of the Irish church. It just requires an awareness of its recent history. -- RD
College fraternities get a better shake from him than does the Catholic Church. Because .... well .... an awareness of recent history .... uh .... they just do, I guess.
Those who want to read Rod Dreher for the serious substance of his work had better have a short memory. Remembering too many of his pieces in the past will tangle up your mind in knots pretty quickly -- that is, until you realize that he is merely about whatever style and fashion strikes his fancy on any given day. Nothing more.
Wait! Don't answer that question out loud. You might get in trouble.
Heather MacDonald asks a bunch of controversial questions which shouldn't be controversial in this article. We're also told that it is a good idea to ask questions, even though they might be rhetorical questions, about problems in our society. Don't you think? Liberals also like to question authority, they usually think "questioning the official statement" is a positive thing. Maybe they're right. I certainly like the questions that MacDonald asks with regard to the official preconceptions which we are told to have about Ferguson. Excerpt:
Example: Ferguson issues fines for traffic violations; 20 percent of its municipal budget comes from such receipts. If people with outstanding fines or summons don’t appear in court, a warrant for their arrest is issued. Conclusion: this is a racist system. The city is deliberately financing its operations on the backs of the black poor. The only reason that blacks are subject to fines and warrants, according to the media, is that they are being hounded by a racist police force. “A mostly white police force has targeted blacks for a disproportionate number of stops and searches,” declared Time on September 1. What is the evidence for such “targeting?” Time provides none. Might blacks be getting traffic fines for the same reason that whites get traffic fines—because they broke the law? The possibility is never contemplated. The most frequently summonsed traffic offense is driving without insurance, according to the New York Times’s “exposé” of Ferguson’s traffic-fine system. Perhaps the Times’s editors would be blasé about being hit by an uninsured driver, but most drivers would be grateful that the insurance requirement is being enforced. Might poor blacks have a higher rate of driving without insurance than other drivers? Not relevant to know, apparently.
The next highest categories of driving infraction are blasting loud music out your car and driving with tinted windows. Attend police-community meetings in poor areas and you will regularly hear complaints about cars with deafening sound systems. Should the police ignore such complaints? Are they ignoring similar complaints in white areas because they want to give whites a pass? Do Ferguson’s white and black drivers blast loud music from their cars at the same rate? We never learn. Tinted windows pose a possibly lethal threat to the police during traffic stops, since they prevent officers from assessing the situation inside the car before approaching. Ignoring this infraction puts officers’ lives at risk. Should the police nevertheless do so? Such is the implication, if doing so would mean fewer fines for black motorists. The New York Times quotes a victim of the racist Ferguson traffic-enforcement system, who was fined for driving without a license. Why was his license suspended—was he driving drunk? Did he hit someone? We will never know. What is the crime rate in the black areas of Ferguson? Also something that the mainstream press is not interested in finding out.
But the most ubiquitous “Ferguson is racist” meme was the most familiar: the police force is too white. Four of Ferguson’s 53 officers are black. This imbalance must be the result of racism and must itself cause racist enforcement activity. How many qualified black applicants to the force applied and were rejected? Not an interesting question, apparently.
Our Cub Reporter was on the job, reporting on the causes of the UCSB murders last week. Of course, a cautionary statement is appropriate, lest the reader run off with his or her own pet theory:
Here's an idea just in case you have to make a 911 call because you are being attacked. If you carry around Pantone color gauges like this one you can just give the 911 operator the Pantone color code for your attacker's skin color. That way when the media replays the 911 tape it will sound sort of like this: "Skin color is PANTONE 18-1142, or maybe closer to 18-1140." That way you can identify the perps coloration in a precise manner without using any language which could be construed to be racial or racist in any way.
From CNS News, "Once Again Obama Misstates Number of Uninsured Americans — This Time in a New York Times Op-Ed". Yes, but misstates equals overstates, naturally.
In fact, according to the latest available data from the U.S. Census Bureau, there are 35.920 million uninsured U.S. citizens and 9.737 million uninsured foreign nationals residing in the United States. Counting the uninsured foreign nationals, that makes a total of 45.657 million—or “nearly 46 million”-- uninsured people in the United States.
But you cannot say, as President Obama has, that there are “nearly 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance coverage” or that “46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage” unless you count 9.737 million foreign nationals as “Americans” and “fellow citizens.”
A blogger named John Savage writes about being disgusted by Rod Dreher's link to a porno picture. There was also a related post on which I commented briefly, but didn't stick around to read his brilliant retort. A commenter named Jamie recorded it:
In another post called “Pa Cyrus: Cynically brilliant?” Rod Dreher explains his real reasons for running the pornographic pictures after taunting a commentator called Pauli.
Pauli says “The short month of April is nearly over and the numbers must need some padding.”
And then Rod Dreher says “How many page views you got at your blog, Pauli?”
This seems to me to be the filthiest reasons of all, to show the pictures over and over just to get people to click on them while pretending to be disgusted and laughing at the fools who fall for it.
Some of my homeys here had been goofing with Gizoogling emails for a couple days, so I fizzigured I'd be the Double O G and Gizoogle this post about Jizzonah Gold-dogg.
Here's the resultin transizlation. It's kind of cool because all yizzle comments get transizlated to the G I double-zoogle in da house.
Hey, sinners who read this blog: do some reparation for this sh*t. From the Catholic League:
An official from Public Radio International, the parent organization that carries “Fair Game with Faith Salie,” called to say that the offensive skit has been pulled from its website and an on-air apology has been given.
We are satisfied with this outcome—it effectively ends this issue.
Original News Release from January 9, 2008
JESUS TRASHED IN ANTI-HUCKABEE SKIT;
OFFENSE AIRS ON UTAH NPR STATION
On January 7, an anti-Huckabee skit trashed Jesus on a radio show, “Fair Game with Faith Salie.” It aired on KCPW, Utah’s National Public Radio station. Here is a transcript of the offensive segment:
[Woman’s voice]: And now another Huckabee family recipe leaked by his opponents.
[Male Voice]: Tired of bland unsatisfying Eucharists? Try this Huckabee family favorite. Deep-Fried Body of Christ--boring holy wafers no more. Take one Eucharist. Preferably post transubstantiation. Deep-fry in fat, not vegetable oil, ladies, until crispy. Serve piping hot. Mike likes to top his Christ with whipped cream and sprinkles. But his wife Janet and the boys like theirs with heavy gravy and cream puffs. It goes great with red wine.
[Woman’s voice]: Now that is just ridiculous. Everyone knows evangelicals don’t believe in transubstantiation.
Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded as follows:
“We are lodging a complaint with Ed Sweeney, KCPW’s general manager. This kind of programming would be over-the-top on a shock-jock station, never mind a station funded by the taxpayers. We would also like to know who was behind this assault on Jesus. Therefore, we are asking for an investigation. Whoever it was, he or she used presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee and evangelicals as foil, saving the real sucker punch for Roman Catholics. This is despicable on several counts: it is blasphemous and bigoted. But it may also be motivated by a political calculus, making it really dirty if it is.”
Jonah's article on Dan Rather's $70 million lawsuit against CBS is a must-read. Excerpt:
Rather used to compare his job to “a very high trapeze act, frequently with no net.” Three years ago, he went splat in the bull’s-eye of the center ring. Now, with the circus long since out of town, he all of a sudden wants a net rolled out.
But you know what? I say, “You go, Dan!”
Frankly, we need this. And by “we,” I mean a grand coalition of people who delight in watching one of the 20th century’s most pompous gasbags fall from the top of the laughingstock tree and hit every branch on the way down. These are dour times, and if Gunga Dan and Hurricane Dan and What’s-The-Frequency-Kenneth Dan want to trade their Afghan robes, yellow windbreakers and enormous tinfoil hats for some baggy pants, bright-orange wigs and floppy shoes, I say let them. I just hope all of the Dans show up at the courthouse in a teensy-weensy clown car.
Jonathan comments to the last post:
I do not think writing for the National Review is what it used to be anymore. Sure, Dreher wrote for the Review but so did Gary Wills. He came up with concept of "Mater Si! Magistra No!" Look also what he had to do to get on the News Hours. He has checked his values at the door. Tell me the last article he wrote supporting Pro-Life views or for diversity in the media? Never! However, because he is against the war and tells enough Bush bashing jokes he gets included in with the other elites. Quite an example if you ask me.
Also can someone tell me of a Conservative Catholic who gets the status of Dreher, Kuo et.al.? Their isn't any. It has all the diversity of the Pravda.
Jonathan, A liberal friend once said to me "Why do gay people want the Catholic Church to accept them? They should just go off and do their own thing. It is so much easier."
Well she was right. They should do their own thing, and start their own institutions rather than anger the people who dominate the institution they are trying to corrupt.
We should do the same thing here. We should have our own institutions including the media. Pauli posted on a man who is buying a radio station in San Fran. Are we all supporting him? Do we all support EWTN?
I get some of my news here at Est Quod Est. Why do we even care about diversity and liberal hypocrisy? We should apply ourselves to making the institutions we have successful.
Someone asked me recently if I ever thought about doing this writing thingy as a career. I was flattered. But I'm really not sure it's a good idea, especially since I write on religious topics so much. Let me try to explain.
If I started getting paid for giving out my opinion on religion there's a good chance that I would start viewing religion in instrumentalist terms. Think about it; if you took away my writing about religion from this site what would be left? Not so much. A few links to jokes I found and some political commentary. Maybe a few laughs worth a buck a month from Google Ads. Best go back to being a jitney driver.
And if I was getting paid or accepting donations to do this blog then I would be receiving utility from my faith? That would make me basically be a faith-based utilitarian, an FBU for short. Kind of a "whatever works" type.
I could see if I was actually really knowledgeable or was a priest or had a theology degree; if I had something to say about this whole religion thing. Naturally I teach my children about religion and I talk to friends about it when the opportunity is presented. But I don't get paid to do that.
It is so darn easy to talk about religion. Look at Madonna, for instance. She's talking about religion now that she's 96 in female pop-star years and she's not as fresh, young and perky and no one cares as much about her as the newer models coming out. If she blogged for some online magazine the editors would probably advise her to convert from Kabala to Yoga or astrology just to beef up the hit count for advertising. "Pimp yo conversion!" Madonna's probably not that hard up for cash though, so we'll most likely be spared from anything of that sort.
But we have enough writers out there who "manipulate God for their own ends"; they are the loudest about their own religions and even more so about that of others are often the least qualified to say anything and are nothing short of offensive in their pronouncements. Andrew Sullivan is ostensibly a Catholic who sees barbarous hordes of what he calls "Christianists" around every corner. He speaks of these politically conservative Christians with wild-eyed paranoia reminiscent of nativist Know-nothing hysteria. Best I can tell they are closest to Islamist suicide bombers, only they are worse because they never actually kill anyone. Damn these wily Christianists! They exploit religious faith and they don't have the decency to blow themselves up. But he has been dining out on this intriguing concept for quite some time, he even wrote a book on the topic. By his own wobbly definition, this makes Sullivan a fundy and an exploiter of a different stripe.
If that is paid religion writing, the hell with it. So say I. There's a reason why Jesus warns about the Pharisees who "strain a gnat and swallow a camel."
I apologize if there are people who really want me to do this more and make a career out of it. Sorry to disappoint you. I just really can't see the point of selling out my religious identity for material success, to "gain the world and lose my soul". If I obsessed wrote about the Catholic Church for a living, I might start taking notes on how Father X does the Consecration, roughing in an outline for my next blog post during my thanksgiving for Holy Communion. I'd ruminate on how Deacon Y said something that I'm not exactly sure I agreed with instead of meditating on the Five Wounds. I'd start noting the banal architecture in the suburbs and motes in the eyes of bishops. Worst of all, I would see all of life in business transaction-like terms: salvation, the end-product; the Sacraments, a service performed; bishops as salesmen....
You know, I think I'm getting really good at the detection of projection, and that's all I'm going to say about that. For now.
(By the way, there are people pimping Lou Reed's new meditation album from a religious perspective, belief it or not. Read it if you want the Rock 'n Roll Animal to teach you about cool stuff like tai chi and alpha states. You can't make this up.)
Blogger Rod Dreher provides us with a creative link between the school shooting atrocity at Virginia Tech and the Catholic Church scandal. It obviously takes him awhile, but read it; it's almost as fun as playing "Six degrees of Kevin Bacon". Excerpt:
Understand, I'm not trying to sentimentalize this mass murderer. I'm trying to understand how a human being gets to the place where he can commit mass murder. In the summer after 9/11, I was still so consumed by anger over the mass murders committed by the terrorists (as well as the Catholic church scandal) that I was grinding my teeth at night, and was distracted in various ways by the anxiety it caused. So I agreed to my wife's request to see a Catholic therapist and learn how to let go of the anger. The therapist began by suggesting that what Mohammed Atta et alia had done was something that was within my capacity as a moral agent to do. I angrily resisted this, for obvious reasons, but the therapist was working to get me to see that what those terrorists had done, their act of infamy, was something that I was capable of under certain circumstances. The idea, I think, was to move me toward understanding their act as all too human, and helping me to find some sort of forgiveness, of letting go. It was an infuriating thought, and I don't know how far we could have gotten with this line of thinking in therapy. Our sessions ended abruptly after about a month when the therapist yelled at me for about an hour and told me I was tempting hell by having written critically of John Paul's handling of the sex-abuse scandal.
This is a ridiculous post. If I were his editor I would not let this post see the light. I would delete it.
At what point is Rod going to write about identifying with the Bishops who were dealing with this over time on a case-by-case basis? If he really wants to be intellectually honest, is he going to put himself in the mind of the perverted priests and try to perform the root cause analysis, by some experience he had when he was a lad?
If he wants to do root cause at this point, he should be analyzing the mindset that doesn't allow C&C types on campus. How about just the criminal justice majors who are applying to be police?
I know you already know today is the feast day of St. Agatha. Read about her here. The bad guys really did some nasty stuff to her. But I'm more concerned with her connection to Malta.
Legend says that carrying her veil, taken from her tomb in Catania, in procession has averted eruptions of Mount Etna. Her intercession is reported to have saved Malta from Turkish invasion in 1551.
Maybe she also saved the Knights of Malta from Terry McAuliffe. Along with her other patronage, she should be the patron of the Catholic blogosphere to protect against badly-sourced blogging.
Turns out that Terry McAuliffe was just banging a couple of coconuts together when he claimed he was going to become a Knight of Malta on Hugh Hewitt's show. So I was right about that teapot tempest. Lifesite news was also properly skeptical at the time, and now they also confirmed Hugh's story here.
