don't know if anybody has been watching "The Following" on Fox. In a lot of ways, it reminds me of the series "24". The storyline involves a battle between Kevin Bacon as an FBI gent brought out of retirement to try and stop a serial killer (James Purefoy) whom Bacon originally put behind bars years ago. Purefoy has escaped and has a whole legion of cult like followers to help him.
The main similarity I see is that the plot is hopelessly implausible, but I keep watching because the acting is so good, as well as the production. Great use of music, etc. Like any weekly t.v. series of this type, you are frustrated each week at how close Hardy comes, only to have him thwarted. The real issue is, like "24" it is addictive and fascinating in a weird sort of way.
I unplugged myself from the MSM news programs some time ago for obvious reasons, relying on internet info instead to keep up with the news. Recently, I happened to be in a restaurant when CBS evening news came on. The first story was about the selection of a new Pope, a story which kicked off by focusing on and following a woman who claimed to have been abused for years by a Catholic priest.
WTF???? I'm not Catholic, and I'm not even that big a fan of the church, but somehow I manage to understand that such a stain on the church is not even close to being a defining trait - except to someone out to slander and smear it.
Well, the heretic-hunters of the Right have come out. Some conservatives (including Michelle Malkin) were upset that Rand Paul didn't filibuster Chuck Hagel, and in fact voted for him (he also voted for Kerry). So he seems to vote w/ the White House on nominees. Twitchy (You will need to scroll down a bit).
Now, you can disagree w/ his voting picks but let me explain the filibuster decision. Filibustering Hagel would look like partisan posturing. Yes, Hagel was an anti-Semitic hack and yes John Kerry is... John Kerry but the two cases are different. Filibustering the CIA Director was largely symbolic. Everyone knew that the moment he yielded Brennan would be voted Director. Rand Paul knew this.
Let me say this: RAND PAUL DID NOT START A FILIBUSTER TO STOP JOHN BRENNAN'S APPOINTMENT!
He did it to raise awareness about the White House's use of drones and the possible use of drones against US Citizens on US soil. Something it seems most Americans agree on. In fact, the only exceptions I can make are something like 9/11 where you have an ongoing attack against the US, an invasion involving US Citizens (Bay of Pigs), major insurrection (2nd Civil War), or Bane taking over Manhattan (Dark Knight Rises*).
In other words, EXTREME situations. This allowed him to really needle the Obama White House on this issue and even garner liberal support (John Cusack and Jon Stewart).
Now, judging by the comments most conservatives seem to understand this. Many pointed to "picking your battles" and Sun Tzu. That is a very good development.
So, moral: You shouldn't block every dumbass Obama nominates and you should pick your battles wisely.
*Yes, I know Bane was likely not a US Citizen but by the end of the movie he had a large army of ex-cons, many of whom were probably US Citizens.
In fact, some in the comments pointed out that by voting for Hagel and Kerry he could say, "I don't oppose every nominee. This isn't about partisanship for me."
Amazing such a thought never crossed Michelle Malkin's mind...
Or the thought I posted above ("Picking your battles").
Covering up thousands of sex abuse cases for decades is something that is going to color public perception of the church for decades (at least). Strikes me as reasonable.
I don't watch CBS, but I found a CBS story in which victims (including unusually, a women) are judging candidates based on how forcefully they condemned the cover-up. Once again, sounds reasonable to me.
I'm just calling it as I see it here; Anthony, you're just being contrary.
The headline, "Sex-abuse victims group names 'least worst' candidates for pope" says it all. Sure, CBS is *just reporting* what SNAP announced, but crafting a narrative is all about information selection. (IOW, I reject the idea unbiased reporting at any level an on any topic.)
Here, they are selecting information suggesting that, b/c there was a sex scandal, there are now no legitimate candidates for the next Pope; i.e. the Catholic Church is not a legitimate institution. That goes well beyond merely stating that it is a blemish that the Catholic Church must address.
And it goes deeper, by raising criticism that the three "least worst" weren't outspoken enough and didn't protest enough about the scandals as they were revealed. I can easily relate that to the "heretic hunters" that Kit mentions who criticize Rand Paul for not filibustering enough. That is a phony and, frankly, cowardly accusation. It is an impossible standard that the accusers certainly cannot bear b/c it suggests that if the good were somehow better then the bad would cease to exist.
On the Catholic thing, I didn't see the story, but it sounds gratuitous to me one of the prime candidates was guilty of wrongdoing on this issue. Otherwise, it sounds to me like the media is just trying to continue the association between the sex abuse scandal and the church at any mention. I find that rather disgusting since I never see an article about any Catholic anymore which doesn't mention that scandal and since I never see the media go after other groups with the same level of obsession.
A more apt and succinct way to put what I concluded earlier (b/c I'm still dwelling on it) would be to say that the accusation shifts blame from the guilty to the innocent. That is a high irony coming from SNAP, since part of the issue there is that the same thing was done to them. And the CBS reporting makes it seem as if there is no irony whatsoever. Certainly, one cannot expect the typical viewer/reader to pick it up.
Kit, My level of respect for the conservative world is at an all time low. As more and more conservatives are starting to break out of the cult, those still in the cult are going insane and savaging them. I am seeing tremendous amounts of illogical, made-up facts, circular reasoning, anger, pettiness, vindictiveness, and childishness. These people seem to specialize in groupthink and Soviet-style show trials done through the media.
Ironically, these same assholes are running around saying, "How dare you attack us! Conservatives should never attack another conservative." Yet, they are in full-on attack mode. Also, the "attack" they are whining about is not an actual attack, it's someone disagreeing with their beliefs. It's pathetic.
To give an example, I read last night that Phyllis Schlafly actually is demanding that GOP refuse to fund any candidate who support gay marriage. Schlafly is one of the "geniuses" who gave us the retarded platform.
Feel free to call it how you see it, but I don't think you are seeing my argument clearly.
I never claimed CBS was unbiased. As I've stated many times before, I don't believe in neutrality has ever existed in journalism (everyone has always had opinions if not an agenda).
Widespread complaints to the contrary, that is less of a problem than it once was because nowadays there are so many news providers out there most people can find someone that tells them what they want to hear.
Your claim that the article claims that the three candidates have insufficiently strong records of child protection is kind of strange because it makes an argument that the article doesn't advance.
The article states that two of the guys have stellar records on child abuse, the third has a strong record but once let the fact a bishop dismissed a large cache of child porn as a 'prank' go (which strikes me as reasonable assuming vandals dumped a load of it in the middle of the church or something, unreasonable if it was found in a cabinet or something).
Last but not least, your attempt to compare people who are absolutists in terms of American politics (unrealistic in an era of divided government) to people who are absolutists in terms of child abuse (realistic given social mores) doesn't make much sense to me.
tryanmax, One of the many tricks the media has adopted is shifting guilt onto innocent people because (1) they cannot respond and (2) it allows the media to frame the story. Thus, if you did it you are guilty. If you covered it up, you are guilty. If you knew about and said nothing, you are guilty. .... so far, so good. But then... if you were a member but didn't look into what you didn't know about, then you are guilty. Even if we know you knew nothing, then we still suspect you knew and you are just lying. And if you were part of an evil organization then you are guilty by association. Even if you came later and you are a reformer, you still need to answer for the evil done before.
This applies to any organization they don't like. But at the same time, organizations they do like get the reverse treatment: somehow, a crazed loner snuck into the organization despite all the safeguards and did something horrible we don't want to fully report, and you have suffered enough... even if you kept right on rewarding them. Besides, there's no proof that we can't dismiss that that person did anything wrong.
Anthony: Covering up thousands of sex abuse cases for decades is something that is going to color public perception of the church for decades (at least).
I agree, but public schools have a much larger issue with child abuse - reported and un-reported - and it's not the first thing you hear when there's a media report on, say, a new Secretary of Education.
As an additional point, 80 percent of the children abused by priests were boys - but they used a girl who had been abused as the example. The reason for that is left as an exercise for the reader.
Anthony, I didn't mean to imply that you found CBS to be unbiased. I was merely laying the groundwork for the remainder of my observations.
As to the CBS article, one has to always read such things from beginning to end, keeping in mind the order things are presented in. Whatever appears at the top, i.e. the headline, is what the most people will see and is therefore a) the message that most will take away and b) reasonably inferred to be the message the broadcaster intends. And, of course, I made that my first point.
Down article stuff reaches fewer people, but it is already colored by what appeared above. Regardless of the specifics, the general message coming through each of the three candidates' stories is how the Catholic Church should be observed through the lens of child abuse coverup and none other. Of course I singled out the part about the "prank" b/c that best illustrates the argument I'm making, that the accusation CBS and SNAP are making is that "the good aren't good enough."
I'm sorry that comparing absolutists to absolutists doesn't make much sense to you, but I think you continue to be disingenuous, since you very adequately reiterated exactly the comparison I was making. It's no use pretending to be obtuse; you're a smart guy and I already know that. Also, refer to Andrew's response to me, as it further explains what I'm poking at.
K, an interesting observation: the CBS article never explicitly states whether either of the SNAP executive pictured were themselves victims of abuse. According to SNAP's website, they were, but I find the omission in the presence of such strong implication perplexing.
Its not that I don't understand your point (comparing absolutists who oppose compromise to absolutists who oppose child molestation) its just that I think it makes no sense.
Political ompromise is something even the purest have to accept some of the time in a time of divided government. Child molestation isn't something that has to be accepted under any circumstances.
Keeping in mind that I still haven't seen the story in question, here are my thoughts.
1. IF the story was to say, "Hey, these guys are good on the sex abuse issue and they should make nice Popes," then there's no reason to talk to victims.
2. IF the story was just about picking a new Pope and none of these guys is tainted by the scandal, then there's again no reason to talk about the scandal as it doesn't relate. The only purpose I can see then is to try to smear the church.
3. IF the story is that one of these guys mishandled the scandal, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.
I suspect, given the way our MSM has handled this scandal, that this was just another attempt at a smear.
Someone mentioned the public education system above and that's very true. If you look at the number of teachers who have sex with students, that's a stunning scandal that goes unreported. Why? Because the MSM likes the teachers unions. I can see no other reason.
Anthony, you are straining the argument. What I am saying in no way approaches the horrible specter which you are entertaining. The absolutism which I am discussing is that which seeks merely to find disagreement where there is none by making the perfect the enemy of the good when there is no perfection. It is the mindless notion that a politician cannot filibuster on one topic unless he filibusters on every topic, nor can a cardinal denounce any suspicious deeds of the church unless he denounces every deed that anyone anywhere ever might find suspicious. What you are insinuating would be akin to saying that Rand Paul is foolish because everyone agrees that some level of drone strikes against innocent Americans is acceptable rather than naming him a worrywart as he has been.
Andrew, I'd say the story could be either #1 or #2 but it's spun as #3. I think the crux of the matter is that the story starts with abuse victims and then goes on to say that the candidates for Pope are all clear. So the intent is to get the reader to think about scandal first and then think about the candidates for Pope in that particular light.
tryanmax, As I said, I haven't seen the story, but I suspect you are right. I suspect the point is to toss blame onto the church and the discussion of who will be the next Pope is a pretext. That seems to be pretty common with the MSM once they find a point they want to pound home repeatedly.
I did some digging and it doesn't sound like the child porn 'prank' was some garbage (the bishop conceded the photos and films were real, but insisted they had been done for laughs and not for sexual titillation) someone dumped in an open area, so the concerns of the abuse victims are reasonable. I'm including the text of the article and the link.
Catholic diocese in Austria stung by porn found at seminary Bishop fights calls for his resignation By William J. Kole, Associated Press | July 13, 2004
VIENNA -- A vast cache of child pornography and photos of young priests having sex has been discovered at a Roman Catholic seminary, officials said yesterday, leading politicians and church leaders to demand a criminal probe and the resignation of the bishop in charge.
Bishop Kurt Krenn, who oversees the diocese, refused to step down, dismissing the images as a "childish prank."
Leaders of the Catholic diocese of St. Poelten, where the seminary is located about 50 miles west of Vienna, spent much of the day in an emergency meeting.
The seminary's director, the Rev. Ulrich Kuechl, resigned along with his deputy, Wolfgang Rothe, the diocese said after the meeting. It did not elaborate.
As many as 40,000 photos and an undisclosed number of films, including child pornography, were found a year ago on computers at the seminary, the respected news magazine Profil reported.
It published several images purportedly showing young priests and their instructors kissing and fondling each other, and said others showed them engaging in orgies and sex games. The child pornography came mostly from websites based in Poland, the magazine said.
Hannes Jarolim, a spokesman for the opposition Socialist Party, urged the Interior Ministry yesterday to launch a criminal investigation. The Austrian Bishops Conference, in a statement, pledged a full and swift internal investigation.
Krenn, a conservative churchman, told Austrian television he had seen photos of seminary leaders in sexual situations with students, but he described the images as part of an elaborate prank that "had nothing to do with homosexuality."
His nonchalance drew swift and scathing reaction across the overwhelmingly Catholic nation.
"Collecting child pornography cannot be dismissed as a prank," said Thomas Huber, a Green Party politician.
A group of St. Poelten Diocese officials planned to ask the Vatican to remove Krenn as bishop, Austrian radio reported yesterday.
Asked whether he intended to resign, Krenn said bluntly: "No."
BTW, Here's another article in the incredible stream of articles I'm seeing which has conservatives getting all tingly over "entitlement reform." LINK.
I'm starting to think our side is pathologically retarded. How in the world can anyone think, "I'm going to cut your benefits" can be a good sales pitch?
Anthony, I agree that the "prank" incident (I continue to use the term b/c it's an easy identifier) sounds very bad indeed. However, the details do nothing to elevate the charge against Shoenborn, who's only crime according to SNAP is "not strongly enough denouncing" Krenn, a charge which plainly indicates that Shoenborn did denounce the Bishop, just not to everyone's satisfaction. That is the ludicrousness of it all.
I'm not sure what you're saying, Andrew. I read the article as speculating that Republicans are working to force Obama's hand and make him do the dirty work on entitlements. Is your grouse that The DC is pointing it out? B/c I doubt many independents and Democrats read The DC.
This article is just another example of what I've seen in the past two months which is very worrying.
Conservatives are rudderless at the moment. They should be looking for issues to win people over. But they can't think of any... because they don't like people.
Instead, they've come up with this idea: entitlement reform. Article after article now seems to accept as a matter of course that our new agenda is "entitlement reform." Even this article makes the point that the "Republicans have finally got their act together" by planning to fight on entitlement reform, i.e. entitlement reform is the issue that will save us.
Good grief. This is a horrible issue. This is more of the same mindset that is just killing us. This is "why isn't there a budget?!" and "we need fiscal responsibility" on steroids. (1) It's the worst kind of green eye shade crap, which people don't care about... only wonks care, (2) it lends itself to exactly the kind of bidding war that helps the Democrats as they will break people into camps and start bidding for affection while smearing us as hurting people, and (3) it's "negative", i.e. our goal will be to strip people of benefits. How in the world can this attract anyone to our side?
Yet, low-information pundit after low-information pundit is blind to all of this. Instead, they label this as the Republicans "being grownups" and "being responsible" and they somehow think this will win people over. It's delusional.
Anthony, I readily admit that I am no expert on Catholic hierarchy, but from what I have been able to glean, Shoenborn's only available course of action regarding Krenn beyond making public statements was to appeal to the Vatican for any type of substantive sanction against Krenn up to and including removal. Shoenborn did just that. I don't know that there is any way to determine the behind-the-scenes goings on after that, but Krenn ultimately resigned in 2004, the same year in which the scandal was made public.
Ah, now I understand. It isn't so much the content of the article in particular, it is the preponderance of article on the subject. On that point, I completely agree.
Yep. The problem is the idea behind the article, which is that somehow entitlement reform is our savior, and the fact that this idea seems to be becoming conservative conventional wisdom. It's like watching a group of people convincing themselves to make an obvious mistake.
Here's something to consider, though. Since the election, I've dramatically shifted my media consumption from being very right-dominated to being more mixed, and probably just a little more left-dominated. What I am reading and hearing (b/c I get little from TV at all) includes a lot of discussion from the left on entitlement reform, as well. No, it's not the #1 topic, which in left-wing media changes daily, but it is a regular topic. And I'd have to say their conversation is a little further ahead than ours. While we are asking, "How can we get Obama to do it?" they are asking, "How can Obama do it, but blame Republicans for what he does?" And, of course, we ask our questions openly, while they bury theirs in obfuscatory suppositions.
And let me make one thing explicit that I only alluded to. The conversation from the left is built on the presumption that entitlement reform is necessary. So, in that regard, I don't think it hurts the GOP brand to make the same acknowledgement.
The left knows this is necessary or the government will die and people's reliance on government will die. Thus, it needs to be fixed. BUT they know it will be amazingly unpopular. So their plan is to get it fixed and to take credit for the overall fix, but blame the specific hurt on the Republicans.
Conservatives are thinking this: if we don't fix entitlement reform, lots of people will get hurt and the government will be paralyzed! On no! That would be irresponsible! Thus, it's "the right thing to do" to fix it. And since everyone respects people who do the right thing (actually said with straight face), the public will love us for fixing it. Hurray! We've found our issue!
The Democrats are reading Machiavelli, our side is reading the Boy Scout manual... the slow kid version.
True that. It's a conundrum, b/c rhetorically the Democrats always outflank the Republicans from the right even as they operate to the left. And most polls indicate that the American electorate are schizophrenic in what they want out of Washington. It certainly makes nihilism look appealing.
The thing is that I think the real problem is the lack of broad-based appeal. If conservatives offered say 10 solid issues that the public really likes and they carried through with those, then it wouldn't be a problem to (1) get the public to agree to things they may not like "for the greater good" once in a while, and (2) point out the Democrats' hypocrisy.
Unfortunately, conservatives have not built up any trust with the public.
Good thing we rely on polls and the media to tell us what the "American people" are thinking. The only true indicator of what the "American people" are thinking of at any one time are elections...and I'm beginning to be extremely disappointed in the veracity of the results, especially in the big cities. Witness Philly 2012: 100% of 13 precincts voted for Obama?! If true it is statistically impossible.
I am afraid I have lost all faith in polls, politicians, old media and the accuracy of vote counting.
Seriously considering moving to Montana and grow a crop of dental floss.
don't know if anybody has been watching "The Following" on Fox. In a lot of ways, it reminds me of the series "24". The storyline involves a battle between Kevin Bacon as an FBI gent brought out of retirement to try and stop a serial killer (James Purefoy) whom Bacon originally put behind bars years ago. Purefoy has escaped and has a whole legion of cult like followers to help him.
ReplyDeleteThe main similarity I see is that the plot is hopelessly implausible, but I keep watching because the acting is so good, as well as the production. Great use of music, etc. Like any weekly t.v. series of this type, you are frustrated each week at how close Hardy comes, only to have him thwarted. The real issue is, like "24" it is addictive and fascinating in a weird sort of way.
I unplugged myself from the MSM news programs some time ago for obvious reasons, relying on internet info instead to keep up with the news. Recently, I happened to be in a restaurant when CBS evening news came on. The first story was about the selection of a new Pope, a story which kicked off by focusing on and following a woman who claimed to have been abused for years by a Catholic priest.
ReplyDeleteWTF???? I'm not Catholic, and I'm not even that big a fan of the church, but somehow I manage to understand that such a stain on the church is not even close to being a defining trait - except to someone out to slander and smear it.
My question is, where's the backlash?
Well, the heretic-hunters of the Right have come out.
ReplyDeleteSome conservatives (including Michelle Malkin) were upset that Rand Paul didn't filibuster Chuck Hagel, and in fact voted for him (he also voted for Kerry). So he seems to vote w/ the White House on nominees.
Twitchy
(You will need to scroll down a bit).
Now, you can disagree w/ his voting picks but let me explain the filibuster decision. Filibustering Hagel would look like partisan posturing. Yes, Hagel was an anti-Semitic hack and yes John Kerry is... John Kerry but the two cases are different.
Filibustering the CIA Director was largely symbolic. Everyone knew that the moment he yielded Brennan would be voted Director. Rand Paul knew this.
Let me say this: RAND PAUL DID NOT START A FILIBUSTER TO STOP JOHN BRENNAN'S APPOINTMENT!
He did it to raise awareness about the White House's use of drones and the possible use of drones against US Citizens on US soil. Something it seems most Americans agree on. In fact, the only exceptions I can make are something like 9/11 where you have an ongoing attack against the US, an invasion involving US Citizens (Bay of Pigs), major insurrection (2nd Civil War), or Bane taking over Manhattan (Dark Knight Rises*).
In other words, EXTREME situations. This allowed him to really needle the Obama White House on this issue and even garner liberal support (John Cusack and Jon Stewart).
Now, judging by the comments most conservatives seem to understand this. Many pointed to "picking your battles" and Sun Tzu. That is a very good development.
So, moral: You shouldn't block every dumbass Obama nominates and you should pick your battles wisely.
*Yes, I know Bane was likely not a US Citizen but by the end of the movie he had a large army of ex-cons, many of whom were probably US Citizens.
In fact, some in the comments pointed out that by voting for Hagel and Kerry he could say, "I don't oppose every nominee. This isn't about partisanship for me."
ReplyDeleteAmazing such a thought never crossed Michelle Malkin's mind...
Or the thought I posted above ("Picking your battles").
K,
ReplyDeleteCovering up thousands of sex abuse cases for decades is something that is going to color public perception of the church for decades (at least). Strikes me as reasonable.
I don't watch CBS, but I found a CBS story in which victims (including unusually, a women) are judging candidates based on how forcefully they condemned the cover-up. Once again, sounds reasonable to me.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57573108/sex-abuse-victims-group-names-least-worst-candidates-for-pope/
I'm just calling it as I see it here; Anthony, you're just being contrary.
ReplyDeleteThe headline, "Sex-abuse victims group names 'least worst' candidates for pope" says it all. Sure, CBS is *just reporting* what SNAP announced, but crafting a narrative is all about information selection. (IOW, I reject the idea unbiased reporting at any level an on any topic.)
Here, they are selecting information suggesting that, b/c there was a sex scandal, there are now no legitimate candidates for the next Pope; i.e. the Catholic Church is not a legitimate institution. That goes well beyond merely stating that it is a blemish that the Catholic Church must address.
And it goes deeper, by raising criticism that the three "least worst" weren't outspoken enough and didn't protest enough about the scandals as they were revealed. I can easily relate that to the "heretic hunters" that Kit mentions who criticize Rand Paul for not filibustering enough. That is a phony and, frankly, cowardly accusation. It is an impossible standard that the accusers certainly cannot bear b/c it suggests that if the good were somehow better then the bad would cease to exist.
Jed, I haven't seen it.
ReplyDeleteOn the Catholic thing, I didn't see the story, but it sounds gratuitous to me one of the prime candidates was guilty of wrongdoing on this issue. Otherwise, it sounds to me like the media is just trying to continue the association between the sex abuse scandal and the church at any mention. I find that rather disgusting since I never see an article about any Catholic anymore which doesn't mention that scandal and since I never see the media go after other groups with the same level of obsession.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the church definitely mishandled it.
A more apt and succinct way to put what I concluded earlier (b/c I'm still dwelling on it) would be to say that the accusation shifts blame from the guilty to the innocent. That is a high irony coming from SNAP, since part of the issue there is that the same thing was done to them. And the CBS reporting makes it seem as if there is no irony whatsoever. Certainly, one cannot expect the typical viewer/reader to pick it up.
ReplyDeleteKit, My level of respect for the conservative world is at an all time low. As more and more conservatives are starting to break out of the cult, those still in the cult are going insane and savaging them. I am seeing tremendous amounts of illogical, made-up facts, circular reasoning, anger, pettiness, vindictiveness, and childishness. These people seem to specialize in groupthink and Soviet-style show trials done through the media.
ReplyDeleteIronically, these same assholes are running around saying, "How dare you attack us! Conservatives should never attack another conservative." Yet, they are in full-on attack mode. Also, the "attack" they are whining about is not an actual attack, it's someone disagreeing with their beliefs. It's pathetic.
To give an example, I read last night that Phyllis Schlafly actually is demanding that GOP refuse to fund any candidate who support gay marriage. Schlafly is one of the "geniuses" who gave us the retarded platform.
Tryanmax,
ReplyDeleteFeel free to call it how you see it, but I don't think you are seeing my argument clearly.
I never claimed CBS was unbiased. As I've stated many times before, I don't believe in neutrality has ever existed in journalism (everyone has always had opinions if not an agenda).
Widespread complaints to the contrary, that is less of a problem than it once was because nowadays there are so many news providers out there most people can find someone that tells them what they want to hear.
Your claim that the article claims that the three candidates have insufficiently strong records of child protection is kind of strange because it makes an argument that the article doesn't advance.
The article states that two of the guys have stellar records on child abuse, the third has a strong record but once let the fact a bishop dismissed a large cache of child porn as a 'prank' go (which strikes me as reasonable assuming vandals dumped a load of it in the middle of the church or something, unreasonable if it was found in a cabinet or something).
Last but not least, your attempt to compare people who are absolutists in terms of American politics (unrealistic in an era of divided government) to people who are absolutists in terms of child abuse (realistic given social mores) doesn't make much sense to me.
tryanmax, One of the many tricks the media has adopted is shifting guilt onto innocent people because (1) they cannot respond and (2) it allows the media to frame the story. Thus, if you did it you are guilty. If you covered it up, you are guilty. If you knew about and said nothing, you are guilty. .... so far, so good. But then... if you were a member but didn't look into what you didn't know about, then you are guilty. Even if we know you knew nothing, then we still suspect you knew and you are just lying. And if you were part of an evil organization then you are guilty by association. Even if you came later and you are a reformer, you still need to answer for the evil done before.
ReplyDeleteThis applies to any organization they don't like. But at the same time, organizations they do like get the reverse treatment: somehow, a crazed loner snuck into the organization despite all the safeguards and did something horrible we don't want to fully report, and you have suffered enough... even if you kept right on rewarding them. Besides, there's no proof that we can't dismiss that that person did anything wrong.
Anthony: Covering up thousands of sex abuse cases for decades is something that is going to color public perception of the church for decades (at least).
ReplyDeleteI agree, but public schools have a much larger issue with child abuse - reported and un-reported - and it's not the first thing you hear when there's a media report on, say, a new Secretary of Education.
As an additional point, 80 percent of the children abused by priests were boys - but they used a girl who had been abused as the example. The reason for that is left as an exercise for the reader.
Anthony, I didn't mean to imply that you found CBS to be unbiased. I was merely laying the groundwork for the remainder of my observations.
ReplyDeleteAs to the CBS article, one has to always read such things from beginning to end, keeping in mind the order things are presented in. Whatever appears at the top, i.e. the headline, is what the most people will see and is therefore a) the message that most will take away and b) reasonably inferred to be the message the broadcaster intends. And, of course, I made that my first point.
Down article stuff reaches fewer people, but it is already colored by what appeared above. Regardless of the specifics, the general message coming through each of the three candidates' stories is how the Catholic Church should be observed through the lens of child abuse coverup and none other. Of course I singled out the part about the "prank" b/c that best illustrates the argument I'm making, that the accusation CBS and SNAP are making is that "the good aren't good enough."
I'm sorry that comparing absolutists to absolutists doesn't make much sense to you, but I think you continue to be disingenuous, since you very adequately reiterated exactly the comparison I was making. It's no use pretending to be obtuse; you're a smart guy and I already know that. Also, refer to Andrew's response to me, as it further explains what I'm poking at.
K, an interesting observation: the CBS article never explicitly states whether either of the SNAP executive pictured were themselves victims of abuse. According to SNAP's website, they were, but I find the omission in the presence of such strong implication perplexing.
ReplyDeletetryanmax,
ReplyDeleteIts not that I don't understand your point (comparing absolutists who oppose compromise to absolutists who oppose child molestation) its just that I think it makes no sense.
Political ompromise is something even the purest have to accept some of the time in a time of divided government. Child molestation isn't something that has to be accepted under any circumstances.
Keeping in mind that I still haven't seen the story in question, here are my thoughts.
ReplyDelete1. IF the story was to say, "Hey, these guys are good on the sex abuse issue and they should make nice Popes," then there's no reason to talk to victims.
2. IF the story was just about picking a new Pope and none of these guys is tainted by the scandal, then there's again no reason to talk about the scandal as it doesn't relate. The only purpose I can see then is to try to smear the church.
3. IF the story is that one of these guys mishandled the scandal, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.
I suspect, given the way our MSM has handled this scandal, that this was just another attempt at a smear.
Someone mentioned the public education system above and that's very true. If you look at the number of teachers who have sex with students, that's a stunning scandal that goes unreported. Why? Because the MSM likes the teachers unions. I can see no other reason.
Anthony, you are straining the argument. What I am saying in no way approaches the horrible specter which you are entertaining. The absolutism which I am discussing is that which seeks merely to find disagreement where there is none by making the perfect the enemy of the good when there is no perfection. It is the mindless notion that a politician cannot filibuster on one topic unless he filibusters on every topic, nor can a cardinal denounce any suspicious deeds of the church unless he denounces every deed that anyone anywhere ever might find suspicious. What you are insinuating would be akin to saying that Rand Paul is foolish because everyone agrees that some level of drone strikes against innocent Americans is acceptable rather than naming him a worrywart as he has been.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, I'd say the story could be either #1 or #2 but it's spun as #3. I think the crux of the matter is that the story starts with abuse victims and then goes on to say that the candidates for Pope are all clear. So the intent is to get the reader to think about scandal first and then think about the candidates for Pope in that particular light.
ReplyDeletetryanmax, As I said, I haven't seen the story, but I suspect you are right. I suspect the point is to toss blame onto the church and the discussion of who will be the next Pope is a pretext. That seems to be pretty common with the MSM once they find a point they want to pound home repeatedly.
ReplyDeletetryanmax,
ReplyDeleteI did some digging and it doesn't sound like the child porn 'prank' was some garbage (the bishop conceded the photos and films were real, but insisted they had been done for laughs and not for sexual titillation) someone dumped in an open area, so the concerns of the abuse victims are reasonable. I'm including the text of the article and the link.
----------------
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/07/13/catholic_diocese_in_austria_stung_by_porn_found_at_seminary/
Catholic diocese in Austria stung by porn found at seminary
Bishop fights calls for his resignation
By William J. Kole, Associated Press | July 13, 2004
VIENNA -- A vast cache of child pornography and photos of young priests having sex has been discovered at a Roman Catholic seminary, officials said yesterday, leading politicians and church leaders to demand a criminal probe and the resignation of the bishop in charge.
Bishop Kurt Krenn, who oversees the diocese, refused to step down, dismissing the images as a "childish prank."
Leaders of the Catholic diocese of St. Poelten, where the seminary is located about 50 miles west of Vienna, spent much of the day in an emergency meeting.
The seminary's director, the Rev. Ulrich Kuechl, resigned along with his deputy, Wolfgang Rothe, the diocese said after the meeting. It did not elaborate.
As many as 40,000 photos and an undisclosed number of films, including child pornography, were found a year ago on computers at the seminary, the respected news magazine Profil reported.
It published several images purportedly showing young priests and their instructors kissing and fondling each other, and said others showed them engaging in orgies and sex games. The child pornography came mostly from websites based in Poland, the magazine said.
Hannes Jarolim, a spokesman for the opposition Socialist Party, urged the Interior Ministry yesterday to launch a criminal investigation. The Austrian Bishops Conference, in a statement, pledged a full and swift internal investigation.
Krenn, a conservative churchman, told Austrian television he had seen photos of seminary leaders in sexual situations with students, but he described the images as part of an elaborate prank that "had nothing to do with homosexuality."
His nonchalance drew swift and scathing reaction across the overwhelmingly Catholic nation.
"Collecting child pornography cannot be dismissed as a prank," said Thomas Huber, a Green Party politician.
A group of St. Poelten Diocese officials planned to ask the Vatican to remove Krenn as bishop, Austrian radio reported yesterday.
Asked whether he intended to resign, Krenn said bluntly: "No."
Yeah, that sounds bad.
ReplyDeleteBTW, Here's another article in the incredible stream of articles I'm seeing which has conservatives getting all tingly over "entitlement reform." LINK.
ReplyDeleteI'm starting to think our side is pathologically retarded. How in the world can anyone think, "I'm going to cut your benefits" can be a good sales pitch?
Anthony, I agree that the "prank" incident (I continue to use the term b/c it's an easy identifier) sounds very bad indeed. However, the details do nothing to elevate the charge against Shoenborn, who's only crime according to SNAP is "not strongly enough denouncing" Krenn, a charge which plainly indicates that Shoenborn did denounce the Bishop, just not to everyone's satisfaction. That is the ludicrousness of it all.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you're saying, Andrew. I read the article as speculating that Republicans are working to force Obama's hand and make him do the dirty work on entitlements. Is your grouse that The DC is pointing it out? B/c I doubt many independents and Democrats read The DC.
ReplyDeletetryanmax,
ReplyDeleteThis article is just another example of what I've seen in the past two months which is very worrying.
Conservatives are rudderless at the moment. They should be looking for issues to win people over. But they can't think of any... because they don't like people.
Instead, they've come up with this idea: entitlement reform. Article after article now seems to accept as a matter of course that our new agenda is "entitlement reform." Even this article makes the point that the "Republicans have finally got their act together" by planning to fight on entitlement reform, i.e. entitlement reform is the issue that will save us.
Good grief. This is a horrible issue. This is more of the same mindset that is just killing us. This is "why isn't there a budget?!" and "we need fiscal responsibility" on steroids. (1) It's the worst kind of green eye shade crap, which people don't care about... only wonks care, (2) it lends itself to exactly the kind of bidding war that helps the Democrats as they will break people into camps and start bidding for affection while smearing us as hurting people, and (3) it's "negative", i.e. our goal will be to strip people of benefits. How in the world can this attract anyone to our side?
Yet, low-information pundit after low-information pundit is blind to all of this. Instead, they label this as the Republicans "being grownups" and "being responsible" and they somehow think this will win people over. It's delusional.
Anthony, I readily admit that I am no expert on Catholic hierarchy, but from what I have been able to glean, Shoenborn's only available course of action regarding Krenn beyond making public statements was to appeal to the Vatican for any type of substantive sanction against Krenn up to and including removal. Shoenborn did just that. I don't know that there is any way to determine the behind-the-scenes goings on after that, but Krenn ultimately resigned in 2004, the same year in which the scandal was made public.
ReplyDeleteAh, now I understand. It isn't so much the content of the article in particular, it is the preponderance of article on the subject. On that point, I completely agree.
ReplyDeleteYep. The problem is the idea behind the article, which is that somehow entitlement reform is our savior, and the fact that this idea seems to be becoming conservative conventional wisdom. It's like watching a group of people convincing themselves to make an obvious mistake.
ReplyDeleteHere's something to consider, though. Since the election, I've dramatically shifted my media consumption from being very right-dominated to being more mixed, and probably just a little more left-dominated. What I am reading and hearing (b/c I get little from TV at all) includes a lot of discussion from the left on entitlement reform, as well. No, it's not the #1 topic, which in left-wing media changes daily, but it is a regular topic. And I'd have to say their conversation is a little further ahead than ours. While we are asking, "How can we get Obama to do it?" they are asking, "How can Obama do it, but blame Republicans for what he does?" And, of course, we ask our questions openly, while they bury theirs in obfuscatory suppositions.
ReplyDeleteAnd let me make one thing explicit that I only alluded to. The conversation from the left is built on the presumption that entitlement reform is necessary. So, in that regard, I don't think it hurts the GOP brand to make the same acknowledgement.
ReplyDeletetryanmax, The problem is this.
ReplyDeleteThe left knows this is necessary or the government will die and people's reliance on government will die. Thus, it needs to be fixed. BUT they know it will be amazingly unpopular. So their plan is to get it fixed and to take credit for the overall fix, but blame the specific hurt on the Republicans.
Conservatives are thinking this: if we don't fix entitlement reform, lots of people will get hurt and the government will be paralyzed! On no! That would be irresponsible! Thus, it's "the right thing to do" to fix it. And since everyone respects people who do the right thing (actually said with straight face), the public will love us for fixing it. Hurray! We've found our issue!
The Democrats are reading Machiavelli, our side is reading the Boy Scout manual... the slow kid version.
True that. It's a conundrum, b/c rhetorically the Democrats always outflank the Republicans from the right even as they operate to the left. And most polls indicate that the American electorate are schizophrenic in what they want out of Washington. It certainly makes nihilism look appealing.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is that I think the real problem is the lack of broad-based appeal. If conservatives offered say 10 solid issues that the public really likes and they carried through with those, then it wouldn't be a problem to (1) get the public to agree to things they may not like "for the greater good" once in a while, and (2) point out the Democrats' hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, conservatives have not built up any trust with the public.
Good thing we rely on polls and the media to tell us what the "American people" are thinking. The only true indicator of what the "American people" are thinking of at any one time are elections...and I'm beginning to be extremely disappointed in the veracity of the results, especially in the big cities. Witness Philly 2012: 100% of 13 precincts voted for Obama?! If true it is statistically impossible.
ReplyDeleteI am afraid I have lost all faith in polls, politicians, old media and the accuracy of vote counting.
Seriously considering moving to Montana and grow a crop of dental floss.
Nice Zappa reference! You will be a mental toss flycoon!
ReplyDelete