Media

What It Takes to Get the Media Angry About Civil Liberties

A little self-interest works wonders.

|

Glenn Greenwald points out

It oughta be for everyone.

how media reactions to civil liberties assaults are shaped almost entirely by who the victims are. For years, the Obama administration has been engaged in pervasive spying on American Muslim communities and dissident groups. It demanded a reform-free renewal of the Patriot Act and the Fisa Amendments Act of 2008, both of which codify immense powers of warrantless eavesdropping, including ones that can be used against journalists. It has prosecuted double the number of whistleblowers under espionage statutes as all previous administrations combined, threatened to criminalize WikiLeaks, and abused Bradley Manning to the point that a formal UN investigation denounced his treatment as "cruel and inhuman".

But, with a few noble exceptions, most major media outlets said little about any of this, except in those cases when they supported it. It took a direct and blatant attack on them for them to really get worked up, denounce these assaults, and acknowledge this administration's true character. That is redolent of how the general public reacted with rage over privacy invasions only when new TSA airport searches targeted not just Muslims but themselves: what they perceive as "regular Americans". Or how former Democratic Rep. Jane Harman—once the most vocal defender of Bush's vast warrantless eavesdropping programs—suddenly began sounding like a shrill and outraged privacy advocate once it was revealed that her own conversations with Aipac representatives were recorded by the government.

This is a familiar—and longstanding — pattern of political behavior. Needless to say, I'll take a fair-weather civil libertarian over someone who never defends freedoms at all; better a hypocrite who helps roll back abuses of power than a pol who recuses himself from the issue for consistency's sake. But the more Americans we can drag toward a more thorough defense of civil liberties, the better. As Greenwald writes,

it is vital to oppose such assaults in the first instance no matter who is targeted because such assaults, when unopposed, become institutionalized. Once that happens, they are impossible to stop when—as inevitably occurs—they expand beyond the group originally targeted. We should have been seeing this type of media outrage over the last four years as the Obama administration targeted non-media groups with these kinds of abuses (to say nothing of the conduct of the Bush administration before that).

Not impossible to stop, I hope. But a lot harder.

NEXT: Chicago Teachers Union Sues to Block School Closures

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Kind of like how white liberals didn’t care about police brutality until it started happening to other white liberals at the Occupy protests?

    1. Yeah, pretty much.

      1. In other “news” Obama dreams of going Bullworth!

        http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ti…..02152.html

        Words fail me.

        1. I always liked the one with Jack Klugman and the other fellow as the ex-preisdents being chased by an evil Dan Akroyd.

        2. What’s stopping him? He’s in his second term. Go for it.

          1. Oh, I imagine we’ll see plenty of this, especially after the 2014 elections.

            1. He should start wearing a Mao jacket without any comment on why. All the time.

              1. Or if he really wanted to confuse the hell out of as many people as possible, a boilersuit, a la Winston Churchill.

                1. Or maybe a Nehru jacket?

        3. As if he has some underlying philosophy that he’s been putting off implementing to accrue political capital. Please. He’s like the Majority Leader in House of Cards. Loves his position has no intention of doing anything with it

    2. In fairness to white liberals, most white conservatives still don’t give a shit about police brutality, or even outright applaud it.

      1. Hey, change any good diapers lately?

        1. The kid keeps soiling them, I keep changing them. Never-ending.

      2. Yeah, white liberals have always been very critical of police brutality when it happened to black people, to be fair to white liberals. What happened is they stopped caring about police brutality when the police fixed their race problem by just beating up everyone.

        If a young unarmed black (minority) kid gets smacked around by the po-po, the media are all over it, and only cover it from a race angle. If an unarmed white guy gets beaten to death… to DEATH by 10 officers and it gets filmed by witnesses and passers by, it hardly gets a mention except on Reason and on a citizen-created facebook page.

        The media literally don’t comprehend how to cover a police brutality case if there isn’t a racial component. It doesn’t compute to them. It all becomes about procedures and benefit of the doubt…

  2. What Greenwald–who is otherwise right–gets wrong is that it wasn’t just that the media wasn’t opposed to the abuses going on; in many cases, they cheered it on. The IRS scandal is a perfect example. How many scumbag TEAM BLUE journalists have said this was OK, even warranted? During the very same week the AP was revealed to have been targeted?

    Partisans are scum of the highest order. They are the problem. Not fairweather civil libertarians. It’s partisans, through and through.

    1. That Atlantic article someone posted in AM links is the worst thing I’ve ever read.

      ‘A man who quoted Karl Marx in his suicide note crashed a plane into an IRS building because he thought it was an attack on capitalism. This makes the targeting of the Tea Party totally okay!’

      1. WTF am I reading?

        1. http://www.theatlantic.com/pol…..ng/275887/

          This article is horrible.

          1. When I said in this column that you could in principle follow my logic to conclude that Joseph Stack was a Tea Party terrorist, I should have added the explicit reminder that this logic depended on accepting the somewhat squishy definition of ‘Tea Party’ ideology that, I argue, is appropriate given the still-inchoate nature of the movement.”

            “If you would just agree with me that sand is water, then my argument makes perfect sense!”

            Fuckin’ schmuck.

            Joseph Stack:

            The communist creed:
            From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

            The capitalist creed:
            From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.”

            Yeah, real small government Tea Partier there.

            1. The real communist creed is, “From most according to their ability, to a few according to their greed.”

              1. The mystery of where the milk went to was soon cleared up. It was mixed every day into the pigs’ mash. The early apples were now ripening, and the grass of the orchard was littered with windfalls. The animals had assumed as a matter of course that these would be shared out equally; one day, however, the order went forth that all the windfalls were to be collected and brought to the harness-room for the use of the pigs. At this some of the other animals murmered, but it was no use. All the pigs were in full agreement on this point, even Snowball and Napoleon. Squealer was sent to make the necessary explanations to the others.

                1. Squealer was sent to make the necessary explanations to the others.

                  Carney will always be Squealer, to me.

                  1. Nice – now I will be thinking that…and smiling, when ever I see the hapless Carney.

              2. I thought it was “from everyone as much as we can extract after we make them bleed”

          2. We posted this twice in the MLs.

          3. and the comments – it’s a cesspool of stupidity. Some of them even make our trolls look smart.

    2. …”it wasn’t just that the media wasn’t opposed to the abuses going on; in many cases, they cheered it on”…

      See the thread on the NPR article; that twit thinks it’s just fine.

    3. But, with a few noble exceptions, most major media outlets said little about any of this, except in those cases when they supported it.

    4. Partisans are scum of the highest order. They are the problem. Not fairweather civil libertarians. It’s partisans, through and through.

      They just never seem to get that it’s a package deal: with great power comes great abuse of it.

  3. What it takes to get the media angry about civil liberties: government violating the civil liberties of the media.

    1. Which will continue until their special status is properly respected and then it’ll be back to business as usual.

      1. Exactly. Never underestimate the power of special pleading.

        1. I mean, if they had tapped the phone lines of ordinary citizens, well, that is one thing. But this violated Freedom of the Press, the most important freedom for members of the press!

          1. But this violated Freedom of the Press, the most only important freedom for most members of the press!

            1. Fuck the members of the press. The First amendment isn’t supposed to create a special class of journalists. It is supposed to protect the right of anyone to publish whatever the fuck they want, whenever and however they want.

  4. I have to agree. Yes, there are hypocrites out there who change their position on rights and liberties as convenience dictate. But there are also people who figure out the value of rights and liberties when its there’s threatened.

  5. Needless to say, I’ll take a fair-weather civil libertarian over someone who never defends freedoms at all;

    Yeah, Tulpa is the worst.

  6. RC Dean LOOMS – “Me today, you tomorrow.”

    But I repeat myself (and him).

    1. where is RC? haven’t seen him around.

      1. The Dean is mourning the loss of his favorite student, Jeffery Winger.

      2. He popped up in a recent thread espousing is Iron Lore on this very subject.

        But I haven’t seen the enigmatic RC as of late.

        Sometimes we just take breaks, or life happens…

    1. The Ross and Rachel of American politics. The writers are going to explore other possible relationships with the other roommates, but in the end, you know the two are going to get back together.

    2. So Matthews will still suck Obama’s cock, he just won’t swallow anymore.

      1. He’ll still swallow, he’ll just make a face when he does.

    3. “What part of the presidency does Obama like? He doesn’t like dealing with other politicians — that means his own cabinet, that means members of the congress, either party. He doesn’t particularly like the press…. He likes to write the speeches, likes to rewrite what Favreau and the others wrote for the first draft,” Matthews said.

      Meee-yow!

      1. Does he like to write the speeches? It seems like if he had any aptitude for that he’d be a better extemporaneous speaker. I think he just likes giving the speeches and receiving the fawning applause.

        1. “He likes to write the speeches, likes to rewrite what Favreau and the others wrote for the first draft,” Matthews said.

          This actually seems fairly accurate. He doesn’t even write the speeches. He does minor rewrites so that he can claim he’s speaking from his heart, despite the fact that 90% of the words and virtually all of the substance was prepared by speech writers.

          1. To be fair, the introversion that generally goes with being really good at speechwriting is the opposite of the extroversion that is generally needed to win elections.

            Don’t have a problem with politicians outsourcing speechwriting.

        2. He’s a shitty speaker with prepared remarks, never mind off the cuff.

          I am surprised daily that Dear Leader is considered a great orator. He’s about the worst public speaker I’ve ever seen. I guess if you’re really, really emotionally invested in the guy he could seem like a modern day Churchill.

        3. all the speeches are pretty much the same.

        4. He’s pretty good at delivery. That’s about it. You’ll find people get roused at his speeches while he’s giving them and then can’t remember much of what he said a couple of hours later.

          1. He’s pretty good at delivery.

            I wouldn’t even be that generous. His speeches are mostly umms, errrs, and platitudes without any real content and his delivery seems phony and stiff. It’s really bad when he tries the balck preacher act, or attempts to convey compassion.

            1. “His speeches are mostly umms, errrs, and platitudes without any real content and his delivery seems phony and stiff.”

              Well, the ummms and errrs are contemporaneous. And I’ll grant you that. But, platitudes without content aren’t delivery. They’re content. And yes, the content sucks. But, in terms of pacing, inflection and cadence, he’s quite good (well, at least compared to other politicians, who tend to sound like they’re droning).

              1. What do you mean “contemporaneous”? Doesn’t that mean simultaneously? He says ummm, then errr, then some other stuff, then umm, then ummm, then umm, then some other stuff, then errr…

                The other stuff is subjective. I don’t hear it.

                Content does have an effect on the perception of delivery; Churchill’s monotone delivery is overcome by the power of his words.

                But if we strictly look at vocal delivery, listen to MLK and tell me Obama deserves to even be in the same speechifying room as him. Besides, a great orator can convince his ideological opponents to consider his position with his delivery. Obama does the opposite.

                I mean, yeah, he’s a lot better than someone like Bob Dole but that’s not saying much at all.

                1. What do you mean “contemporaneous”?

                  He probably means extemporaneous.

                  I don’t understand the appeal of Obama, either. He’s a dreadfully dull speaker if you come in expecting substance.

                  1. You are correct. I did mean extemporaneous. My apologies to you, as well.

                    I think you caveated your own point though. If you’re expecting substance, yes, he sucks. That was kind of my original point. People who loved his speech can’t remember what the hell he said a week later. There’s no there there.

                2. pmains is correct. I did mean extemporaneous. My fault. I apologize.

                  The other stuff, though, in large part IS delivery. Yes, it’s subjective. But, objectively, you can observe empirically that it does charge up a crowd. MLK-level? No, not at all. That’s why I said “pretty good”. Saying he’s not the speechmaker Martin Luther King was is praising with faint damnation.

      2. “What part of the presidency does Obama like?”

        The power. Duh.

        1. ^^^THIS.

          How did Al Pacino put it, in that classic movie Scarface, when he was explainging how to pick up chicks to Manny?

          1. Say hello to my little friend?

          2. You think Obama’s in this for the women?

    4. The tingle is gone
      The tingle is gone away
      The tingle is gone baby
      The tingle is gone away
      You know you done me wrong baby
      And you’ll be sorry someday

      The tingle is gone
      It’s gone away from me
      The tingle is gone baby
      The tingle is gone away from me
      Although I’ll still live on
      But so lonely I’ll be

      The tingle is gone
      It’s gone away for good
      Oh, the tingle is gone baby
      Baby its gone away for good
      Someday I know I’ll be over it all baby
      Just like I know a man should

      You know I’m free, free now baby
      I’m free from your spell
      I’m free, free now
      I’m free from your spell
      And now that it’s over
      All I can do is wish you well

  7. Not impossible to stop, I hope.

    Awww, that’s cute.

    You dewy-eyed little optimist, you.

  8. That is redolent of how the general public reacted with rage over privacy invasions only when new TSA airport searches targeted not just Muslims but themselves: what they perceive as “regular Americans”.

    Wait, so the general public reacted with rage to TSA a couple of years ago when they were suddenly targeted instead of ‘racial profiling’? I must’ve missed that. The general public has been grumbling but generally taking it like the sheeple they are, even as the frog’s water has come to a boil. And while you are more likely to be fucked with if your name is Mohammed, plenty of 80 year-old grandmothers with a name like Smith have had their tits felt up by TSA heros.

    1. The reason no one cares about the TSA is that most people don’t fly very often. The people who do fly a lot are annoyed by it, but they don’t have the numbers or the time to do anything about it, so they just adapted and bought easy on/off shoes and use hotel toiletries etc.

      I think if most Americans flew even 10 times a year, the TSA’s offices would be in flames.

      1. I fly in the US about once every two years and I hate those fuckers. But I’ve never been good at dealing with petty authority figures.

      2. AuH20| 5.16.13 @ 12:02PM |#
        “The reason no one cares about the TSA is that most people don’t fly very often.”

        My driving/flying distance has changed drastically and I’ve chartered a couple of times. Anything to avoid groping at the airport.

    2. My parents just did the TSA exemption thing. I think it was $100 for 5 years. I’m totally doing it.

  9. Greenwald links to a Maddow video. I don’t think I have ever seen her before. Holy shit is her stream of consciousness with constant repetition style irritating. Especially the need to make a point 3 times in a row 3 different ways. It’s like she thinks her viewers are stupid.

    1. No one can accuse her of not knowing her audience.

    2. Also, even when going after Obama, she still has to spend the first 11+ minutes of a 21 minute segment reassuring her viewers that OF COURSE Republicans are evil and mean and bad and she thinks that too and you should never forget just how wicked those Republicans are, even when chiding the Obama administration.

      1. Obama is getting less and less usful to the cause. They are going to turn on him.

        1. There were still some Nixon defenders even post-resignation. I don’t think Maddow is that dumb not to see which way the wind is blowing, but there will be some who will defend Obama even when he executes an 8 year old on national television.

          1. Maddow is the smartest person/tallest midget at MSNBC. That’s got to count for something.

            1. And here I was thinking the janitor was the smartest person at PMSNBC.

              1. Yeah, AC, why you gotta go forgetting Jorge like that?

                1. That’s funny.

                  I imagine a guy pushing a broom on the set slowly, and disapprovingly shaking his head saying, “Ay dios mio, what a bunch of idiots!”

          2. but there will be some who will defend Obama even when he executes an 8 year old on national television.

            Obama already has admitted to the execution of children on national television — but apparently if they are darker beige skinned kids in Third World shitholes, it’s OK.

        2. It’s going to be ugly, since the guy essentially was raised up by others rather than due to his accomplishments or character.

          The same people who lifted him up will be able to kick him back down. And once the dam breaks and it’s safe to turn against him, it will be an uncontrollable flood people lining up to take their shot.

          I am starting to think that impeachment is a possibility.

          1. We can only hope.

            1. I’m holding out for tar and feathers.

          2. I also think it could be better for the cause of progressivism if they can pin this all on Obama.

            If they claim it was Obama’s fault, then they get to do their whole ‘the right men simply were not in charge!’ bullshit that they always try to pull.

            If it turns out that this is just an instance of the government being completely uncontrolled, then it cuts to the very heart of progressivism. If government is uncontrollable, then that’s an obvious argument in favor of a smaller government.

            Putting this on Obama would allow them to ignore the flaws in their worldview.

          3. He means a lot to the black community. The black community is not going to stand idly by and let Obama go down. This could be very fun.

            1. The black community is not going to stand idly by and let Obama go down.

              It’s his white half that was corrupt!
              /Sharpton

          4. Are we going to start hearing “he was never really a genuine progressive anyway?”

            1. We already do. All I ever hear from progtards is that Obama is really a moderate Republican.

              1. He loves the free market. Pull!

            2. I don’t think I’ve ever heard any progressive claim he was a genuine progressive. They call him a moderate. And I think that is really pretty accurate. I really don’t think he has any plan to transform the US to a more socialist place, or whatever righties think he is doing. I think he is just clueless and grossly incompetent.

          5. Obama is clearly just one of those politicians who is entirely a creature of, and run by, the party. A collapse of his administration that involves mounting scandals bringing down more and more people is bad for the party. If it gets truly ugly, which it may, look for the party to abandon him with unseemly speed.

            Until then (and afterwards), they’ll twist, spin, and prevaricate.

            1. “clearly just one of those politicians who is entirely a creature of, and run by, the party”

              Dick. Durbin.

              1. He did let the junior senator from his state step past him.

          6. Love to see it. But I’d bet against it. Turning on Obama would risk conceding that “Hope and Change” was a sham all along. And there’s a lot of layers and a lot of plausible deniability to insulate him.

            1. Obama might actually have meant the Hope and Change bit. Probably not, because he appears to be a sociopath, but who can read thoughts? But then he got inaugurated, and his acts speak for themselves.

            2. Yeah, I think this is right. The press is going to do thier absolute best to overlook as much as possible and let it blow over, though it may take longer than we’ve seen in the past.

          7. It’s going to be ugly, since the guy essentially was raised up by others rather than due to his accomplishments or character.

            Which is probably why he finds it baffling that anyone can succeed without government handouts.

          8. And once the dam breaks and it’s safe to turn against him, it will be an uncontrollable flood people lining up to take their shot.

            “When the camel kneels down in exhaustion, out come the knives.”

            Oh, if only. Who appoints a special prosecutor and when do we think we’ll see one?

        3. They will never turn on him. Just look at all the attempts at blameshifting and misdirection.

          1. Yeah, let’s not start sucking each other’s dicks just yet.

            1. Well, you’re no fun.

          2. Were you alive when Nixon was president, and went from a landslide victory where he won every state but Massachusetts and DC and got over 60% of the popular vote, to being booted out of office, in a few years?

            Things can change fast in politics.

            1. You could argue that during Watergate we still had an adversarial media – and in fact did seeing as the media was liberal/democrat and Nixon was a Republican.

              Not only is Obama one of their own, he was anointed by them, chosen by them; they have too much at stake to turn on him. It would set back the progressive cause to much.

            2. I remebr Watergate. That was a different time, and republicans were willing to criticize Nixon and take him to task for his wrongdoing, and the media absolutley hated Nixon and were heavily invested in taking him down.
              By contrast, democrats will never seriously go after one of their own, and the media is heavily invested in protecting Obama. TEAM loyalty seems to have gotten much more extreme in the decades since Tricky Dick, and it now trumps any wrongdoing, no matter the evidence.

              1. Well said, WTF, well said.

            3. +89% George H.W. Bush approval rating, February 1991.

        4. Obama is getting less and less usful to the cause. They are going to turn on him.

          No they won’t.

          1. Nope. They didn’t go after Clinton, and they won’t go after Obama. They might nail a few lower-level goons to keep their pretense of objectivity alive.

  10. Speaking of media and liberals. I am at a course reading various theorists on future and military conflicts and such. I was forced to read people like Friedman and Bryan Kaplan. What strikes me about them is how terrified they are of uncontrolled change. And they have absolutely no faith in human inginuity or any ability of society of to self correct. There isn’t a single trend they won’t take and extend to infinity. At heart, modern liberalism so deeply conservative. Friedman reads like a terrified school marm. There is all of this change and no one is in charge. And that explains why they are such boot lickers. They are totally terrified of things happening they can’t control because they have no faith in humanity outside of top men.

    1. I assume you’re talking about Thomas Friedman and not Milton Friedman, right? Because Milton wasn’t opposed to uncontrolled change, but Thomas Friedman is a bootlicker who thinks China is the be all and end all of effective governance.

      And is there another Bryan Kaplan, because I also assume you aren’t talking about the libertarian economist who works for the Mercatus Center.

      1. I mean Thomas. And really the dumbest one of them all is Barnett who wrote the Pentagon’s New Map. I am in a class almost entirely composed of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. To people who have done it, Barnett’s belief in the ability of the military to build nations doesn’t pass the laugh test. And Barnett is such a cock. He thinks he is so smart. What a clown.

    2. The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.

      They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority.
      Bastiat

      1. Goddammit, sarc, why won’t you just accept the fact that people who graduated from the Kennedy School of Government are your ntellectual and moral superiors? The degree says so!

      2. Dude was a genius.

        1. Every time I read a Bastiat quote, I think “Yes, that is exactly what I have been trying to say”.

          1. Bastiat says, “I do not dispute their right to invent social combinations, to advertise them, to advocate them, and to try them upon themselves, at their own expense and risk. But I do dispute their right to impose these plans upon us by law ? by force ? and to compel us to pay for them with our taxes”.

            We need to pass it to find out what’s in it.

    3. Must be why I’ve always loved the Libertarianish Sci-Fi writer from Heinlein to Niven to Michael Z. Williams who embraced the chaos.

      As soon as efficient travel to other planets is available – people like me will flee the statists as fast as they can book passage. Just like my ancestors fled from European statists.

      1. The “freedom flight” that will occur the instant that is possible will be hilarious. I wouldn’t be surprised if the statist scum actually try and prevent it. At heart, they hate it when you don’t want to be part of their collective. You’re rejecting them. And leaving their control.

        1. Of course they’ll try to block it. Probably in the name of Outer Space Treaty:

          States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities

          Can’t have regular people meddling in the affairs of the States.

          1. Of course they’ll try to block it. Probably in the name of Outer Space Treaty

            A quick hosing down with the fusion drive should take care of that problem.

            1. Oh, did I accidentally push that rock onto a collision course with Turtle Bay/DC/Brussels? Whoops.

      2. And the domesticated descendents of those wild travelers will demand statism just as the domesticated descendents of those wild people who fled Europe demand it now.

        1. but if we can be free for a short burst of time – it would be worth it.

          1. The universe is huge, and possibly infinite. Once interstellar travel is possible, pretty much unlimited territory to flee to will be available.

            1. Once interstellar travel is possible

              That will only happen when unlimited energy is discovered. Which will happen in like never or something.

    4. What strikes me about them is how terrified they are of uncontrolled change.

      If you read Marx with a critical eye, you’ll see that a fear of change is what drives his hatred of free-market systems. The dynamism, innovation, and change wrought by capitalism browns his undies. There’s even an ugly sounding term for it: “The coercive laws of competition.” In other words, competing capitalists have to match the productivity of their competitors.

      Most marxists use the term in relation to increased “exploitation” but it was originally meant to describe increased production brought about by technological advances in manufacturing.

  11. “Now, just hold on a minute! Do you mean to say these laws could be applied to ME?”

  12. OT:

    Newsflash, new Pope is a socialist. Film at 11.

    He said free-market capitalism had created a “tyranny” and that human beings were being judged purely by their ability to consume goods.
    Money should be made to “serve” people, not to “rule” them, he said, calling for a more ethical financial system and curbs on financial speculation.
    Countries should impose more control over their economies and not allow “absolute autonomy”, in order to provide “for the common good”.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..money.html

    1. So the pope doesn’t understand the distinction between money and wealth.

      Then again, in my experience anyway, most people don’t.

      1. Well, you don’t get made Pope by being economically literate.

        1. Some call me Tim?| 5.16.13 @ 12:40PM |#
          “Well, you don’t get made Pope by being economically literate.”

          We joke about pols never having a job; you can imagine the preq’s for being pope.
          A knowledge of econ isn’t even in the same solar system.

          1. He’s really good at telling you why David Hume is full of shit though.

    2. He’s Argentinian, no surprise there. And he’s a Roman Catholic, so control and guidance of the little people in their supposed interest has always been a goal of the church. I imagine he believes that RCC is especially well suited to make money “serve” people.

      1. He reined in the liberation theologians in his Argentinian jobs – not all Argentines are into that stuff.

    3. He said the church had created a “tyranny” and that human beings were being judged purely by their ability to obey and to tithe.
      The church should be made to “serve” people, not to “rule” them, he said, calling for a more ethical religious system.

      Fixed it for you, Sanctissime Pater.

    4. Papist supports tyranny, dog bites man, water is wet.

      Film at 11.

    5. The Roman Catholic church has never been all that comfortable with capitalism. The Pope’s Latin American, the rock of Liberation Theology which is basically a kind of Catholic Socialism.

      Hell, apart from the Joel Osteen’s of the world, most religious leaders are pretty uncomfortable with capitalism and consumer culture. A lot would argue that once you dispense with the money you need to survive, the rest of what you have should be spent on others.

      Any number of religions have pretty socialist outlooks/movements, and I don’t care if they do as long as they don’t try to use the government. I f it motivates them to help others and give to charity, well, then, that’s actually one of the better things that faith can do.

      1. A lot would argue that once you dispense with the money you need to survive, the rest of what you have should be spent on others given to the church.

        Fixed that up a bit.

    6. “that human beings were being judged purely by their ability to consume goods.”

      Didn’t he just contradict himself by saying that?

    7. Say what you will of the speech, the Pope isn’t a liberation theologian – they seem to be uncomfortable with him.

      An Italian version of the speech is here, and Google translate seems to result in a passable translation, if you fill in the gaps in a couple places:

      http://www.vatican.va/holy_fat…..ri_it.html

  13. Sometimes man, you jsut have to roll with it dude.

    http://www.Secure-Web.tk

  14. denounce these assaults, and acknowledge this administration’s true character.

    They have?

    Look, I know this is unscientific, but I listen to NPR… a lot.

    Using my own listening habits as a random sample, when the Susan G. Komen foundation decided to pull $100,000 in funding from planned parenthood because they thought it could be spent more effectively elsewhere, I could turn on NPR at any random point during the day for a week, and within five minutes hear a story about the Susan G. Komen foundation pulling funding from Planned Parenthood.

    I haven’t yet heard a peep from NPR about any of this.

    Which doesn’t mean they haven’t talked about it, it just means they haven’t talked about it enough for me to randomly catch it… at all.

    1. The KULTUR WAR ranks above everything.

      Rights? Civil liberties? Are women and minorities hit hardest? Not interested.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.