Why the sudden attack on alchohol?

So by now I'm sure you've heard that the research is in, and alcohol leads to cancer.  I first saw it announced last year, and since then almost every other week I've seen news stories about how more and more research is drawing a thick, straight line between drinking and cancer.  So much so that, as this story says:

"There really isn’t a safe level of drinking when it comes to cancer risk."

You see that?  There just isn't a safe amount of drinking where cancer is concerned.  This isn't the usual 'research says a glass of wine is good for you/research says a glass of wine is bad for you' that we're used to hearing.  No.  This is a growing, concerted, coordinated assault on alcohol in general.

So I ask myself - why?  Yes, cancer seems to be on the rise, though you never know. I've heard it is on the rise one day, then I'm told it isn't on another.  I do know many things are getting worse - food allergies and Alzheimer's/dementia are said to be increasing and at younger and younger ages.  That much I can see and don't need research to point out the obvious. 

But for some reason, the press and medical establishment have gone pit bull on alcohol. Which is strange.  Because the processing of alcohol in some parts of the world, and perhaps even here in the States, is one of the few things left whereby traditional, more natural and less synthetic and artificially created chemical processes and preservatives are used.  Why in an age of most foods being injected with endless chemicals or pesticides or processed in ways hell and gone from natural, it's wine and beer that is the target has me scratching my head.

I brought this up in response to yet another story about the dangers of all alcohol, and received a puzzling answer.  I was told in the US it's often not the case that alcohol is processed naturally today. I was told we use as much artificial and manufactured chemicals in processing drinks today as with any other food group.  But to me, that seems like the problem is the artificial processing, not the alcohol. 

Yet the stories keep rolling out.  Every other week or more frequently.  So I ask, why?  Especially since it's impossible for me to think that if alcohol, something that has been consumed for thousands of years, is suddenly a problem, the rest of what we're eating and drinking should be off the scale and met with even greater warnings.  Yet little is being said there, despite a year long wave of broadsides against alcohol and alcohol alone. 

I should note that, at the end of the above story, it does say there are many, many issues in the research that need addressed, and much that is not known.  That's something I guess.  It's just that since last year, this more than anything has become a major point across the news media and in the medical fields, and I can't help but wonder why.  

Let it be known, BTW, that I'm not being paid by beer or wine companies here.  Nor am I encouraging people to drink.  It's just that in our modern age of post-truth and post-integrity, when something like this comes out of the blue when it seems so out of joint with everything else going on, it makes me wonder what is up.  What are they up to, and why. 

It must be Catholicism

Mike Lewis, over at Where Peter Is, chimes in about the whole kerfuffle in Charlotte.  That is where some documents were apparently leaked (a popular trend I'm no fan of) that suggested a willingness by Bishop Martin of Charlotte to go after the Latin Mass in a way that would make McCarthy blush.  There was backlash, not surprisingly.  

The whole assault on the Latin Mass and the traditions of the Church, that reached a fever pitch during the pontificate of Pope Francis, is one of those things that reminds me I'm Catholic. Because as goofy as Christians can be in living up to Jesus' observations about the Children of Light v. the Children of this age, Catholicism usually wins hands down.  

At a time when the world is pulling itself apart, suffering and misery exploding, paganism is coming back in vogue, global elitists are musing about euthanasia, human sacrifice and even cannibalism, and a growing number of people are leaving the Faith or staying and insisting they don't buy most of the BS anyway - an entire swath of Church leadership has decided the important thing is to abolish the Latin Mass.   You know, that part of Catholicism that even non-Catholics have traditionally associated with the Church.  It's like the Allies saying in 1944 that before we storm Normandy, we need to take care of these squirrels in the yard. 

Eh.  That's the Catholic Church for you.  Lewis' take is everything you would expect from Lewis or any contributor at Where Peter Is.  But most who visit my blog have likely seen responses from those upset at Bishop Martin's actions, so this is another point of view.  

FWIW, the only reason I went there was to see if anyone at the site has mentioned Pope Leo's June 1st emphasis on the families, babies, moms and dads and all, as the rest of the world moved into the month of pride as virtue where sex is concerned.  So far, unless they have a hidden page, the answer would be no. 

A first

A reminder of the passage of time. 

Yesterday was the first time I remember that the news didn't mention the anniversary of D-Day.  Not in the morning shows, nor in the local outlets.  

Granted, I couldn't watch every station at once.  And I didn't watch the entire broadcasts.  But in the past, I didn't have to.  At least once or twice, every June 6, just in casually having the news on and getting ready, I would see one or two mentions at least.  But not yesterday.  If it was brought up, it must have been at the bottom of the hour after I had gone. 

I wanted to wait and post on what I saw and see what they said, but I saw nothing.  In print media, the only major national outlet in the news feed that I saw was the NYT, using D-Day to criticize President Trump's relationship with our traditional allies.  But I guess at least it mentioned the day. 

I suppose this is what comes of time.  Especially today, where the past is increasingly remembered only to condemn, and as quickly forgotten.  When I was growing up, WWI was seen as ancient history, the Spanish American War even more so.  WWII was the dominant historical memory, at least until the 1980s, when Vietnam overtook WWII in the pop culture mindset.  I've often wondered if we would have remembered WWII as long as we did, had it not been for that Boomer penance period of Saving Private Ryan, The Greatest Generation and  Band of Brothers and similar (not to mention that all too brief wave of post-9/11 patriotism).   

Who knows.  Had those not brought WWII back into the public mindset, WWII might have been as obscure for my boys as the Spanish American War was for my generation. But it did get a boost and a generational round of attention in those days. So for the following years, at least December 7th and D-Day received the obligatory mention each year.

A few years ago, during the 2020 revolution, I recall some tried to insist it was time to stop remembering Pearl Harbor and instead remember the beginning of the Japanese American internments.  That didn't appear to fly. But I note that following that, no real mention was given of that day of infamy in casual news broadcasts in any event.

Now D-Day seems to have landed on the chopping block.  Whether we can draw a line between this and other events I've noticed that have received no media attention, I don't know.  I just know that yesterday, for the first time I ever remember, that Day of Days went without mention in anything I saw.  As, I suppose, all things must. 

All things must pass
None of life's strings can last
So I must be on my way
And face another day.

                           George Harrison

The nowhere pope of the postmodern age

So I noticed something.  In the months following the election of Pope Francis, the news media lit up like a solar flare.  This was especially true after his famous 'who am I to judge' remark about the LGTBQ movement.  Every week, if not every day, there seemed to be stories about Pope Francis.  All of which gushed with praise and adoration and optimism about how Pope Francis was beginning the good work of finally burning that old time religion to the ground.  For example, this one always comes to mind, from the rag dedicated to proselytizing our youngest into a world of Sodom and Gomorrah debauchery and nihilism: 

That was just part of the new age of post-modern propaganda that rotated around Pope Francis like a hurricane.  Reminds you of the messianic visions of Obama in 2008, don't it. 

Anyway, I notice in comparison to that, the press has been rather quiet about Pope Leo XIV. But so has everyone else.  Certainly in comparison to the almost daily posts unpacking the latest Pope Francis interview or talking point.  Oh, people mention Pope Leo here and there.  For instance, those of more traditional sympathies noted that on June 1st, otherwise known as our last month long foray into post-Christian paganism and dreams of a post-Western world for the year, Pope Leo chose to talk about families and mom and dad and having those babies.  

So naturally, this is what I saw after June 1st on most media outlets that bothered to mention him at all:

At least Vatican News added the family admonition to the important news

Over at Where Peter Is, where every word that proceeded from the mouth of Francis seemed to warrant its own special column (except his trashing of transgender activism), I saw no mention of his June 1st musings.  Just a column reflecting on how Pope Leo can effectively continue the reforms and activism of Pope Francis, and one reflecting on the real meaning of his emphasis on unity.  

Whether it's the Church righting itself, or people wanting to refrain from rushing in, or what, I don't know.  Clearly Pope Leo is not what the press initially hoped or imagined.  By now we know that thing we used to call the news media is merely tabloid propaganda.  They have no desire to cover news, merely promote.  And so far, it seems whatever they want to promote and what they see in Pope Leo XIV are not one and the same.  At least it looks that ways thus far.  So we'll see.  Just something I've noticed.  

For a bonus giggle, here is a Youtube video (posted on WPI) in which we realize Pope Leo and Pope Francis will be, well, the same but with different name tags.  And unity properly understood is when we realize it's the fault of those traditionalists and more conservative types misreading what Pope Leo no doubt intends to mean:

Heh.  That sort of thing always makes me chuckle.  The old leftwing trick of asking why can't conservatives stop being so damn divisive and just admit it's all their fault.  I find the stunning lack of self-awareness among those, including Christians, who tack Left is usually the most amazing thing.  And most annoying.  

Maybe it is time to stop with the talking points

We live in an era where violence and stigmatizing is across the board. We saw seen four policemen shot, one killed, in two days in our neck of the woods. We just witnessed two separate attacks on Jewish Americans, resulting in fatalities. People in every demographic are facing the results of our modern society's insistence that we break apart and hate each other. So why is this particular group somehow uniquely harmed by this so as to take it to the next level? Just saying 'mistreatment or stigmatized' - especially in our age where across our nation the LGBTQ community is almost deified, celebrated, defended and endorsed and supported - just doesn't cut it.  Again, the days of just yelling 'Bigots!' as the all explaining answer to everything is fading, at least if we really care and want to solve the problems.

I can't really speak to this

 

I don't know why people like picking on those things. When I lived in Louisville back in the 90s, I recall a news story from my old stomping grounds in Columbus.   Apparently some vandals tore down one of the Big Boy statues, dismembered it, and then drove around the city putting its parts in different locations. 

Now, I'm not one to make light of breaking the law or people engaging in property damage.  But I admit, that one made me giggle.  Still, I've never understood the glee people have in dissing on the Big Boy mascot, apart from the obvious.