The whole being absurd to point out absurdity schtick is funny and effective when there's truth to be revealed or underscored and Limbaugh is usually brilliant when using this meme to point to leftist idiocy.
But there comes a time when “idiot” isn’t a pejorative; it’s an excuse.
Mr Limbaugh is doing his the-pope-is-a-marxist-communist-not-a-corporatist-like-me thing again. After reading this latest rather bizarre attack against the Holy Father, I am faced with three possibilities.
1. Mr Limbaugh has relapsed into his drug problem.
2. He’s an idiot.
3. He is deliberately baiting the Vicar of Christ for ratings, despite the fact that a grade-school child could read the interview he’s referencing and know that he’s misquoting and miscasting what the Holy Father said.
Given the choices, I’ve decided that, in charity, I will give Mr Limbaugh the benefit of the doubt and assume that he’s an idiot. I don’t, for instance, think that the fact that he makes at least $70 million per year in salary, or that his net worth is approximately $400 million, has in any way messed with his mind.
What set Mr Limbaugh off on another of his attack-the-Holy-Father spiels is an interview Pope Francis gave to Il Messaggero on Sunday.
The most *charitable* explanation is that Limbaugh is an idiot. The more realistic explanation is that nobody in his position is really so dumb as to believe the pope is a communist or thinks Jesus was a communist, so the more likely take is that he’s ginning up ratings with a little good old fashioned pope bashing.
What he is emphatically not doing is making the slightest effort to understand Francis or the Church’s teaching on the poor (a word he habitually pronounces “pewer” with a sneer).
The Standard Bearer of the Thing that Used to Be Conservatism, which has joined the pro-abort Left in a deepening hatred toward the Church and this pope.
I've been a huge fan of Limbaugh's for more than 20 years and so seeing this sort of thing is most troubling but there's no getting around the fact that he's wrong about this Pope. Not just wrong though. He seems to be going out of his way to impugn the Vicar of Christ and relying on the main stream media to do it.
It truly makes no sense to me.
I don't think him to be an idiot, certainly not in totality yet his views on Pope Francis are pure idiocy.
What the hell is wrong with him? To what exactly is he selling out? It's time for the man to do some serious soul searching.
He's losing a fan but worse, he's losing much, much more.
... in the Western Catholic blogosphere with the state of Catholicism in Central Africa.
For those not in the know, a major kerfluffle broke out amongst a number of Catholic bloggers that I link to frequently and those that I do not. I leave it to The Anchoress to give a bit of a summary:
Right now, I am forced to use this puny amount of energy I possess in order to address a breathtaking fog of stupidity that is poisoning the air of faith we all need to breathe.
In Israel my wifi was spotty, so I missed its inception, but an ongoing brouhaha has brought all sorts of requests into my email box from people requesting that I either “discipline” Mark Shea and Simcha Fisher, or “correct” them, or “get them to remove these Facebook posts” or “fire them.”
Well, I’m not going to do any of that. But I will explain why, as respectfully as I know how. The issue is this: On May 23, Life Site News (LSN) published a piece by Hilary White that — when taken in its entirety — amounted to, “Oh-my-gawd-the-pope-concelebrated-mass-and-kissed-the-hand-of-a-93-year-old-dissenting-priest-who-defends-homosexual-love-and-homosexual-and-isn’t-this-horrible-about-the-dissenting-homosexual-and-awful-Francis-and-homosexualists-and-homosexual!”
LSN’s intention in publishing the story was to present the known facts about a public meeting between the pope and one of Italy’s leading Catholic dissidents – a newsworthy event in itself. However, in retrospect we recognize that in the absence of certain necessary clarifications and contexts the facts alone, as presented, unnecessarily lent themselves to misinterpretation.
The statement probably should have ended there, but the writers felt the need to outline three possible reasons (among potentially scores of them) for the pope’s meeting, all of them problematic, all of them sheer conjecture.
Bottom line, and I'll admit that I've not followed it all to the full as it's more than a little discouraging, is that lots of ugliness, name-calling, character assassination and more broke out as a result and all I can think is how this is impacting those outside looking in on the Catholic Church.
Muslim rebels stormed a Catholic church compound in the capital of Central African Republic on Wednesday, killing at least 30 people in a hail of gunfire and grenades, witnesses said.
The attack on the compound at the Church of Fatima, where hundreds of civilians had sought refuge from the violence ravaging Bangui’s streets, is the largest blamed on Muslim fighters since their Seleka coalition was ousted from power nearly five months ago.
Wednesday’s attack marked a rare attack on a house of worship, as Catholic churches have served as sanctuaries for both Christian and Muslim civilians since the country erupted into sectarian bloodshed in December.
Fears escalated late Wednesday that the new bloodshed would spark reprisal attacks on the city’s few remaining Muslims, most of whom fled the city in a mass exodus earlier this year that the U.N. has described as ethnic cleansing.
“We were in the church when were heard the shooting outside,” the Rev. Freddy Mboula told The Associated Press. “There were screams and after 30 minutes of gunfire there were bodies everywhere.”
About 30 people were killed in the attack, according to another priest at the scene, the Rev. Paul Emile Nzale.
If you'll follow the Muslim fighters link, you'll note that lots of tit for tat killing is taking place and in the midst of it all are numerous Catholic churches.
I can't help but think that a truce of sorts in the Catholic blogosphere ought to take place and energies expended in smearing and belittling each other might instead be spent in prayer for those in the midst of the carnage taking place in central Africa.
It's a thought.
I suspect many in Africa would appreciate those prayers.
Twenty years ago, critics such as Christina Hoff Sommers, Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, and Karen Lehrman described the bizarre "therapeutic pedagogy" in many women's studies classrooms, where female students were frequently encouraged to share traumatic or intimate experiences in supportive "safe spaces." Today, at many colleges, academic therapism has spread to other fields. Welcome to the age of the trigger warning.
The trigger-warning vogue began a few years ago on feminist websites, and then spread to other "social justice" blogs. The idea behind them is that for people who have post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), something that reminds them of the trauma can trigger painful flashbacks and panic attacks. Initially, the warnings were primarily for sexual assault and partner abuse. Eventually, on some blogs, they spread to just about everything that could be potentially upsetting to any person of politically correct sensitivities: sexism, racism, homophobia, "ableism," "victim-blaming," "slut-shaming," "fat-shaming," "body-shaming" and a host of other sins and oppressions. (My personal favorite, from Melissa McEwan's Shakesville site, is a warning for "discussion of gender policing"--that is, of norms dictating proper bounds of masculine and feminine behavior. How startling to find such a discussion on a feminist blog!) Warnings for mere references to gun violence, suicide, self-harm and various mental disorders, as well as things that trigger phobias--from spiders to small holes (really)--have proliferated as well.
Trigger warnings have been the subject of some controversy in the feminist blogosphere. Journalist and blogger Susannah Breslin wrote a scathing piece in 2010 ridiculing the practice as melodramatic nonsense, triggering (pun fully intended) a furious backlash in which she was called every name in the book, including slurs that might themselves be said to call for trigger warnings. (Breslin also told me that for months after the controversy, she received emails from "an unhinged woman" telling her that she should be raped and killed.)
Now, according to a troubling report by free-lance journalist Jenny Jarvie in The New Republic, trigger warnings have arrived on college campuses. It's difficult to tell when this trend began, but blogpostsdiscussing the use of such warnings in the classroom go back a couple of years. In the latest development, some schools are now moving to make such warnings mandatory. On February 26, the University of California-Santa Barbara student senate passed "A Resolution to Mandate Warnings for Triggering Content in Academic Settings," asking that professors be required to give advance warnings of curriculum or discussion content that may trigger PTSD symptoms--and that students be allowed to skip "triggering" classes without losing points for attendance.
The UC-Santa Barbara resolution seems to be the first of its kind, but faculty guidelines recently posted on the Oberlin College website offer elaborate advice on trigger warnings. Professors are told to "remove triggering material when it does not contribute directly to the course learning goals" and offer an explanation for using such material if they have to. (Sample disclaimer: "We are reading this work in spite of the author's racist frameworks because his work was foundational to establishing the field of anthropology, and because I think together we can challenge, deconstruct, and learn from his mistakes.") Amusingly, the guidelines also caution against such wordings as "This movie might be upsetting to some of you," which "can sound patronizing"--presumably unlike instructions on how to draw "correct" conclusions from problematic material. At my own alma mater, Rutgers University, the student newspaper, The Daily Targum, recently published a column by sophomore English major Philip Wythe advocating trigger warnings as "a safety system that allows full artistic expression, as well as psychological protection for those who need it."
By contrast, trigger warnings are rooted in the assumption that our colleges are full of walking wounded--victims/survivors of "the rape culture," the violent capitalist patriarchy, and traumas that are nearly always inherently political and related to oppression. The trigger-warning mindset ostensibly encourages traumatized people to remain stuck in their fragility; but it also cultivates entitlement and self-righteous outrage. When several students get up and walk out of a classroom because the (female) professor uses an analogy involving rape to illustrate the difference between correlation and causation, it is doubtful that their walkout is prompted by a debilitating fit of panic and anxiety; moral indignation is a far more likely motive.
Jill Filipovic, a radical feminist writer and blogger who has surprisingly come out against trigger warnings in the academy--despite championing them in the blogosphere--sums it up well: "Generalized trigger warnings aren't so much about helping people with PTSD as they are about a certain kind of performative feminism: they're a low-stakes way to use the right language to identify yourself as conscious of social justice issues."
Reading this clap-trap should trigger a serious bout of eye-rolling. Amazing that feminists are now adopting weakness and faint-heartedness as necessary ingredients for championing their cause.
It’s not funny but it’s on “Funny or Die.” President Barack Obama appears in a “Funny or Die” video with Zack Galifiankis for the comedian’s “Between Two Ferns” satirical talk show. The pair strident, antagonistic trade barbs that don’t work– they come off as hostile and satirical. Then there’s a pitch for Obamacare and its impending March 31st deadline. This is supposed to appeal to young people. But basically the two just insult each other. The whole comes off as less presidential than Richard Nixon saying “Sock it to me” on “Laugh In.” Obama should not quit his day job.
Actually, the sooner he returns to being a community organizer, the sooner hope would blossom again in this country.
One would think that the President of the United States would have better things to do.
One would be wrong.
This isn't funny... and we're all dying. Dying to see him leave DC for good.
Ron Kinney, 67, waits tables at the French Quarter Restaurant in West Hollywood, California. In December, he received a huge tip on a $50 bill - but threw away the receipt, thinking that a diner had simply had too much to drink.
Unbeknown to Mr Kinney, 'Tips for Jesus' is a phenomenon sweeping the country where restaurant staff from New York to Arizona have been left thousands of dollars by an extremely generous, anonymous patron.
It's politically incorrect of me to say and likely less than Christ-like... but I hope you Obama supporters who are losing your insurance or having to pay a butt load more in premiums are getting the hope and change you were looking for.