Stones Cry Out

Jim Finnegan, writing in the Naples (Florida) News, was responding to some folks who had commented on his original article on the Catholic Church priest child abuse cases.  Apparently, some folks read his words and though he was saying something directly opposite to them.  In his follow-up, he first had to give the obligatory disclaimers that he’s not excusing anyone, but he quoted some information that puts this all in perspective.

Charol Shakeshaft, a researcher of a little remembered 2004 study for the U.S. Department of Eduction [sic] on the physical sexual abuse of students in schools, pointed out " the physical sexual abuse of students in schools, is likely more than 100 times the abuse of Priests." I am sure this is easy to Google for the entire study should you wish.

Shakeshaft also pointed out that "nearly 9.6% of students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometimes durin [sic] their school career." Creditable accounts of Priestly abuse occured [sic] from but 1.7% of the total Priests in the U.S. Thankfully, Shakeshaft’s study is now being revisited by news commentators seeking to restore some sense of proportion to the media’s aggressive coverage of the Catholic Church.

While Priestly sex abuse can never be mitigated by these figures, they do point out the gross imbalance, and bring question to the motives of the news media that are pouring resources into digging up decades old dirt on the Church. Sadly,the nerative [sic] that has been constructed is often less about the protection of the young (for whom the Catholic Church is, by empirical measure now the safest environment for young people in America today

Aside from Finnegan’s need for a spell checker, this does point out a stark double standard in play, by both liberals and the media (apologies for the repetition).  Just going by numbers, you’d think there would be more coverage about abuse in schools, which (if you don’t homeschool) have a mandatory attendance requirement, vs. church, which is entirely voluntary.  Not to mention the fact that the school abuse continues while…

The facts show that Priestly sex abuse is a phenomenon that spiked in the mid 1960’s into the 1980’s. This at the time that the "anything goes" sexual revolution began. These are the old cases that the media has chosen to resurrect in their recent attacks on the Church.

Again, none of this should be construed as excusing anyone of these horrible deeds.  But a little perspective is in order, and the media, since it goes against "the narrative", is simply not providing it. 

AP Photo/Icelandi Coastguard

Halldor Kolbeins/AFP/Getty Images

An Alternative Observation of Earth Day

 1.       In the face of slow action by humankind, God temporarily addresses global warming with volcanic ash that may lower worldwide temperatures for a time. 

2.       To provide an example of how people can slow down for a few days, God closes European airspace, dramatically reducing  consumption (and the burning of fossil fuel) and helping people observe the Sabbath.  

3.       Makes a dramatic statement:  The Earth is the Lord’s and everything in it” Psalm  24:1. 

J

When windows are broken at the headquarters of a Democratic politician, it makes the news.  Racial epithets allegedly yelled at Congressmen (for which no actual evidence exists currently) get days of coverage.  But when Republican political operatives, leaving a Republican fundraiser, get beaten outside it and have bones broken, the MSM heaves a sigh of boredom and virtually ignore it.

Left wing blogs spring into action and report that the brutal attack was not politically motivated.  So, that explains the (lack of) media coverage?

To steal Limbaugh’s phrase, Andrew Breibart and company don’t need to be balanced by equal time.  They are equal time.  As Frank Ross says in his article:

Here we have a beautiful 26-year-old woman who has pins and screws keeping her leg together. We have her boyfriend with a broken jaw and nose. At what point does the media become a willing accomplice, through its silence and utter lack of curiosity, in these crimes?

When indeed?

Good morning.

1. Deadbeat dads, a screwed up law, how about some suggestions of how to fix it?
2. Heh.
3. So, what part is adiaphora what part is dogma/doctrine?
4. So, if the EU would not survive the breaking of the Euro … a question begs, would the US survive the breaking of the dollar?
5. Strunk and White … a birthday not celebrated (HT: Dr Platypus).
6. Art.
7. On Mr Obama’s recent memo.
8. Noting the left’s penchant for literalism.
9. A cricket race and confusion.
10. Five myths regarding the abuse scandal and the Roman church.
11. Making Maxwell symmetric.
12. The Democrats, just pretend this doesn’t happen.
13. My guess it that the left’s response to this is, “so what?” Although I think it also misses the big tax hikes in the middle.
14. Mr Clinton characterizes the current Administration.

In telegraphing their intentions to infiltrate yesterday’s Tea Party protests, Jason Levin and his comrades gave Tea Party proponents a chance to prepare to disavow, not just folks from "Crash the Tea Party", but even nuts from within their own ranks.  Armed with signs helpfully supplied by Andrew Breibart’s "Big Government" web site, protesters could get in front of the media coverage curve and completely deflate attempts to push the perception of the movement out of the mainstream.

And it seems to have worked.  And some people brought their own signs to out the provocateurs. 

But given the history of Tea Party coverage on the broadcast news networks, this was required, and I’m guessing these signs will now become a staple at protests.  Well, at least at conservative-leaning protests.  The liberal side of the aisle hasn’t said much about the socialists that find common cause with them, but now that a precedent has been set, it’ll be interesting to see if they follow suit and let us know who does and doesn’t speak for them. 

But a big "thank you" should go out to Jason Levin for alerting the protestors and allowing them to prepare.  One wonders that if Jason really believes the Tea Partier are a bunch of racist, homophobic morons, why would they need any help looking that way?  Perhaps the premise is fatally flawed.  Consider this.

It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them.

– President Obama

Guess what, Mr. President? We LIKE it (and we do not like the alternative).

Good morning.

1. Huh!?
2. Two tracks.
3. One man’s interpretation as genius. I think that’s perhaps a stretch.
4. Hurt rider.
5. That hockey stick.
6. Libertarianism considered.
7. ID spoofing a crime? Is that warranted or necessary? 
8. When to work out.
9. OK, I’m on board with NSF increases … so what’s getting cut?
10. Tea party as enemy.
11. A bet, and the staked items are clever.
12. Somebody noticed the CBO “scoring” is less than useful.
13. Technology, economics and fantasy fiction. 
14. While we do not “owe anything to the founding fathers” in a literal sense, political philosopher Bertrand de Jouvenel would argue that their authority is the basis of our state.
15. Tax game. An answer to make me shudder would be the salaries, pensions, and benefits of those ‘elected’ morons residing in the beltway and their staff. To make me smile try the Tevatron and … hmm … well, I’m still thinking about it.

Good morning.

1. Church and Institutional dangers.
2. Talking about the new Atheists.
3. Bush and Obama … some thoughts.
4. The last sentence is very cute.
5. One conspiracy theory not holding water, details here and here.
6. Praise for Mr Obama’s summit, the press not so much.
7. Academia leaning left.
8. Infection vs the mysterious.
9. Innumeracy and the pundit. Compare collateral damage during WWII and the Iraq war … order of magnitude make a difference.
10. Phenotypical differences between human cultural groups can have athletic or dietary consequences. To suggest cognitive consequences however is still right out.
11. Greece.
12. Tax day quotes.
13. A demonstration of how not to support your point.
14. Mr Beck is a fool.

A passage I read some time ago in Bruce Malina’s book (The Social World of Jesus and the Gospels) which considers anthropological research and its implications for New Testament hermeneutics and reading has been resurfacing on occasion over the last few weeks. I haven’t got it at hand for an exact quote, but basically it goes along with TANSTAAFL and some of the trade-offs we in our culture fail to acknowledge, in fact if correct, also points out some of the denial implicit in our coverage and reporting on Middle Eastern and, well, other cultures.

Here is the statement. Honor/Shame societies, which describe the culture in which 70% of the world exists today have a number of obvious contrasts with Western liberal societies. As we have seen in the last few centuries, market driven liberal societies have enormous capacity for economic growth when compared to honor/shame societies. However, TANSFAAFL comes into play. People in general are happier in an honor/shame environment. Suicide is markedly decreased and as well murder, rape and other such crimes of personal violence are far less common.

Our reporting today highlights and focuses on incidents of child marriage and abuse, the rapes and honor killings of close clan and family members over events which in our society be not an outrage. What they miss within our society (apparently) overall levels of murder and rape and likely even incest are far lower … as well as suicide and mental illnesses.

So, should I research this further? Find the quote, check his references, and dig for backup independent statistics? Or (what is more likely) even if true it wouldn’t matter. Well?

Yes, some folks weren’t paying attention and thought all this "free" health care was supposed to kick in the day after The Won(tm) signed it into law.  And now buyer’s remorse has hit.

Three weeks after Congress passed its new national health care plan, support for repeal of the measure has risen four points to 58%. That includes 50% of U.S. voters who strongly favor repeal.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters nationwide finds 38% still oppose repeal, including 32% who strongly oppose it.

But while those folks may just not have been fully informed, our Congress folk should certainly have been caught off guard.  That’s what we pay them for!  And yet…

It is often said that the new health care law will affect almost every American in some way. And, perhaps fittingly if unintentionally, no one may be more affected than members of Congress themselves.

In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members.

For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available.

The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?

To answer that question, we look to other news items.  A few weeks ago, Congress was shocked — SHOCKED — to find companies writing off millions and billions in losses over a federal prescription medicine that was going away.  Companies are, by law, required to honestly represent their revenues and liabilities, but Democrats will have none of that, if it reflects poorly on their pet project.  But now, a lot of other shoes are starting to drop.  At the SayAnything blog:

A starting revelation on the Scott Hennen Show today from Rod St. Aubyn, Director of Government Relations for Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota.  St. Aubyn notes that under Obamacare, all polices offered in North Dakota must be approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and that this approval process will force BCBS to reduce its insurance offerings from over fifty different policies…to four.

(Audio at the site.)  And if you do get insurance, ObamaCare may be doing nothing about its cost.

Public outrage over double-digit rate hikes for health insurance may have helped push President Obama’s healthcare overhaul across the finish line, but the new law does not give regulators the power to block similar increases in the future.

And now, with some major companies already moving to boost premiums and others poised to follow suit, millions of Americans may feel an unexpected jolt in the pocketbook.

Advertisement

Although Democrats promised greater consumer protection, the overhaul does not give the federal government broad regulatory power to prevent increases.

And once you’ve paid for it, good luck finding a doctor.

Experts warn there won’t be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law. At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

That shortfall is predicted despite a push by teaching hospitals and medical schools to boost the number of U.S. doctors, which now totals about 954,000.

And if you do find a doctor, good luck finding a hospital.

The new health care overhaul law, which promised increased access and efficiency in health care, will prevent doctor-owned hospitals from adding more rooms and more beds, says a group that advocates physician involvement in every aspect of health care delivery.

Physician-owned hospitals are advertised as less bureaucratic and more focused on doctor-patient decision making. However, larger corporate hospitals say doctor-owned facilities discriminate in favor of high-income patients and refer business to themselves.

The new health care rules single out such hospitals, making new physician-owned projects ineligible to receive payments for Medicare and Medicaid patients.

Existing doctor-owned hospitals will be grandfathered in to get government funds for patients but must seek permission from the Department of Health and Human Services to expand.

All this and more (including increased taxes on those making less than $200,000) is summarized in a very informative Wall St. Journal op-ed.  Yeah, you can try to paint the WSJ as some right-wing editorial board, but they quote the NY Times, the LA Times; hardly bastions of conservatism. 

And so we go back to the question asked by the NY Times, "did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?"  I think it’s pretty clear they didn’t. 

Good morning.

1. Healthcare, some glitches. Doctor shortages and a slight mistake/misreading. 
2. 10-6, an accounting dodge or was it about putting unpopular legislation into a distant (deniable) election cycle?
3. Anti-natalism discussed, I can’t think of any reason why anti-natalism is anything but really really dumb.
4. One reason why that is so … life is good -> see?
5. Coming together.
6. Mothers day (today!).
7. Being conservative, although citing 1950s isn’t helping the argument, that was over 2 generations ago.
8. A street not named desire.
9. Civil war.
10. Furry teeth.
11. For the Palin fans in the house.
12. The upside of our stupid overcomplicated tax code … voter rage. Perhaps we should move the tax deadline and elections to coincide datewise.
13. A password hint.

Good morning.

1. Christ is Risen … all together now.
2. Memory eternal .. in Poland, here and here.
3. Monkabee #2, heh.
4. Taxes too high you think? Guess what’s coming down the pike.
5. Threats on the rise … or at least reports of threats. Those who complain that the GOP is too quick to pull the victim gambit stay silent as their side does.
6. Kitty got teeth.
7. Background reading on the VAT tax.
8. One more from the Gentlemen on porn.
9. The “anti-Christian position that our beliefs are not chosen?” Huh?
10. On FDR and the actual “Great” Depression.
11. Swiss and firearms.
12. Tea party plug.
13. Planned Parenthood still spouting nonsense.
14. I would have guessed 2-4 percent.

I was on Spring Break vacation with the family last week, so other than my post-dated blog posts, I didn’t write much … well, anything.  But I did surf the web and kept track of some articles I wanted to highlight when I came back.  Here they are, in mostly chronological order of when I found them.

Amnesty International decided that jihad was not antithetical to human rights so long as it’s "defensive". 

The bump in polling numbers after passing health care "reform" was supposed to go to Democrats.  Instead, while it’s just a measure of emotion at this point in time, you’d think that all the promises of the bill would give Democrats a few higher point.  Instead, they’re at an 18-year low.  It’s quite possible that people are only now understanding what they supported all along, because the "free" stuff isn’t materializing right now.

What was the point of the resurrection on Easter?  Don Sensing has (had) some thoughts.

The Tea Party’s ideas are much more mainstream than the MSM would like you to believe.  And Tea Partiers are much more diverse that the MSM realized.  Turns out, they did some actual journalism and found out the real story.  Imagine that.  Has the liberal slant of the press become a problem of corruption, especially with, first, the willful ignoring of the Tea Party story, and second, the willful misreporting of it?

Toyota cars have killed 52 people, and got a recall for it.  Gardasil, a cervical cancer vaccine, has had 49 "unexplained deaths" reported by the CDC and it’s still required in some states.

Changing the names to protect the guilty, the words "Islam" and "jihad" are now banned from the national security strategy document.  When the next terror attack Islamic jihadists happens, it’ll be interesting to find out how they describe it.

Cows have been exonerated of helping to cause global warming.  No, really.

Rep. Bart Stupak’s reversal of his principles is having the proper effect; he’s decided not to seek re-election.  Likely, he couldn’t get re-elected anyway, after betraying his constituents, but let this be a lesson about trusting "conservative" Democrats too much.

And finally, media scrutiny of church vs. state (click for a larger picture):

Oh, that liberal media.

Good morning.

1. Climate and equilibrium.
2. Napoleon and Spain (not Russia).
3. Reading the Red Wheel.
4. Death and taxes … and this?
5. Say it ain’t so.
6. Porn discussions continue, two Gentlemen posts here and here.
7. Robots and the sacred?
8. The next recession?
9. The Episcopal Barbie?
10. Poland and grief.
11. One response to the “it is a curse to speak of him” meme.
12. Spartacus!!! Cancellara wins Roubaix.

[I am working on a project that may become a book on the most influential evangelicals leaders of our generation, since 1976, and the impact they’ve had on the church and their times. I will introduce them briefly on this blog from time to time. Who should be on this list?]

#5 Jimmy Carter. Born again President b. 1924

America had never had a presidential candidate, at least in the nation’s collective memory, utter the words: “I am a born-again Christian,” like the Georgia peanut farmer and Baptist Sunday school teacher Jimmy Carter did as he plied the towns of Iowa and the nation in an unlikely quest that resulted in his election as president. As a result of this bold declaration and public witness and the publication of Chuck Colson’s biographical account of his conversion, Born Again, Newsweek magazine declared 1976 the Year of the Evangelical.”

Jimmy Carter was different, and observers of his 1976 bid for the presidency readily recognized it. As a candidate, Carter spoke very openly and candidly about his faith, his commitment to Christ, his love for Scripture, and his desire to bring “a new spirit” to government. He quickly became a symbol of the rekindled religious and political vigor of American evangelicalism.

Carter said: “I’m a father and I’m a Christian; I’m a businessman and I’m a Christian; I’m a farmer and I’m a Christian; I’m a politician and I’m a Christian. The most important thing in my life beyond all else is Jesus Christ.”
Based on his Christian testimony and toothy optimism, I—like many other Christian belivers–supported Jimmy Carter in 1976 and delayed my final college work to become part of his Iowa campaign staff. I considered his election a harbinger of good will and healing for our nation, and marveled that such an outspoken Christian was sitting in the Oval Office.

As president, he continued to teach Sunday school, found occasions to share his faith with foreign leaders, readily admits in his post-presidential works that religion was an indispensable guide for his presidential behavior, and believes that Americans “have a responsibility to try to shape government so that it does exemplify the will of God.”

Regarding his frequent public displays of faith, church historian Martin Marty explained that Carter knows no other way to be. “Jimmy Carter is a public Christian…. It’s O.K. to be a private Christian in America, but he doesn’t know how to be a private Christian. Religion for him goes right to the streets, and he successfully relates his Sunday faith to his Monday world.”

My enthusiasm and optimism waned in the next four years, not because of any failure of presidential faith or moral fidelity, but because of a malaise that gripped the nation, Carter’s weakness during the Iran hostage crisis, and the fact that he never seemed to grasp the art of pulling the right levers of presidential power.

[After the campaign, the next time I was with Carter personally was during a Habitat for Humanity build in Chicago in the early 1990’s, when the odd couple of Democrat Jimmy Carter and Republican Chuck Colson swung hammers together to build homes for four poor but worthy Chicago families. On the first day of the build, Carter and Colson appeared together on the Today show in a live feed from the construction site. When Jane Pauley asked Colson what it was like to team up with Carter, Colson responded (with his remarkable ability to produce on the moment quips): “The last time I worked with a President I got one-to-three years [his prison sentence for Watergate]; this time I just got hard labor.”]

Although Carter failed to retain his early support of many evangelicals and was defeated by Ronald Reagan in 1980, the transparency of his Christian testimony—regardless of his politics—further emboldened evangelicals who were moving deliberately toward a greater role in public life and political action. Carter’s race for the nomination and his election to the presidency established for many the arrival of evangelicals as a new force on the American scene.