You only thought rape was a non-negotiable

What would Gloria say?

So Law & Order.  I saw this mentioned on a few sites and more or less ignored it.  It's Law & Order after all.  One of those 'issue dramas' that have all the objectivity of a Branch Davidian Bible study. 

But I kept seeing people jump on this, even in a national press outlet or two (like Newsweek), so I thought I would look into it.  Yes, the initial 'hysteria' was correct.  The gist of the episode is that a white woman is raped by a black teen, but is praised for realizing she still has the privilege and the black man, a victim in his own right, will pay for life while she'll be free with her privilege.  

Eventually, the woman's lesbian lover explains she's inconsolable over the racism of our criminal justice system, knowing  that the black man will never get a fair trial.  Because she is white, she realizes that a little therapy on her part - therapy for the whole violently raped thing - will be all she needs. Then back to being okay with her white privilege.  But the victimized black man will forever be a victim of our racist system of racist justice in our racist country. In the end, she does identify the man, but a plea deal is reached and the DA commends the man for taking responsibility for his actions after he apologizes for the little rape thing.   

FWIW, it's the  'she'll more or less get over it with some therapy' that appears to be the source of the outrage.  We have, after all, accepted that all such 'sexual crimes' are unforgivable on this side of heaven.  That to be raped or sexually abused is a life changing, permanent wound that will never truly heal.  Oh, with therapy and counseling you can manage the trauma, but you will carry the scars for life.  But now?  Eh.  Apparently it depends on your skin color. 

The Leftist dichotomy of oppressed versus oppressor is almost the civil religion of 21st Century America.  In the 1970s, there were no real criminals, only victims of our oppressive and unjust society.  Then feminists  said no way. Maybe muggers and mass murderers are victims, but show me a rapist and I'll show you someone who should be branded for life as a sex pervert.  Eventually, any sex crimes were added to the list, and we accepted that there could be a never ending list of sex based crimes that are worthy of a lifetime of being branded human scum.

But since the Obama years, the Left did a hard turn and tweaked that little standard and has now, effectively, made unforgivable sins only apply based on group identity (see the leftwing reaction to the October 7 massacre of Israeli Jews for a non-sex based example).  With almost no pushback, a not insignificant part of our nation - Christian leaders included - have accepted that the importance of all culpability and absolution, and apparently even suffering, derives from one's group identity.    

The Left isn't giving up, as this episode makes clear.  The message is as obvious as you can get it - if you're a white woman raped by a black man, then lying there on your back being raped, you still have the privilege.  Go get some therapy and fuhgeddaboudit.

In 2020, during the BLM protests, my sons were in college.  In one of the college forums, apparently some professor somewhere in Ohio stepped in it.  At the time, the case of Reagan Tokes came up.  She was a beautiful young college girl who was kidnapped and brutally raped and murdered.  The man who allegedly killed her was a convict who should have been behind bars, but owing to the injustices of our system, was put on a dumbed down house arrest style setup shoddily enforced.    

For some reason, that case came up during the peaceful protests of 2020. And the professor - who I cannot remember - said that the word 'rape' should not be used when describing such an action by a black man against a white woman.  Not that it was good what he did to Miss Tokes.  It was horrible.  It was tragic.  But the fact is, she still had the privilege owing to her skin color, even as her last breaths were being choked out of her. 

Let's just say the forum conversations were pretty intense, with almost all expressing outrage at such a notion.  I don't know if the professor ever apologized or not.  There were many things to think of back then.  So universal was the outrage, however, that I didn't really bother with it.  Just some wacked out professor being a modern professor on the internet, and everyone was rightly upset.  All was right with the world. 

But that was so 2020.  Now, we have a major Hollywood production saying basically the same thing.  White women gotta take it because privilege and systemic racist injustice and all.  Group A - you get what you have coming.  Group B?  Anything you do is excusable because of oppression or freedom fighting.  And note, the actress is quite white.   Remember that every totalitarian revolution has to have its fair share of Boxers willing to head off to the glue factory for the cause. 

If you think it won't get worse, consider the LGBTQ community and Chik fil A.  Over a decade ago, some local politicians in Boston and Chicago floated banning the restaurant from their jurisdictions because of the owner's views on homosexuality.  Yet LGBTQ activists roared in protest.  No way.  That's not what they are about!   I remember even the Huffpost jumped up and down and threw a yellow flag on the idea of government actors punishing a business because of religious beliefs.  

A decade later, however, and it was LGBTQ protesters calling for various agencies, government or otherwise, to ban. punish, censor or in any way ruin  Chik fil A over its previous owner's beliefs (and with plenty of the national press's help by way of being free advertisers for Popeye's Chicken, CfA's chief competitor).  And what of those lofty principles of religious freedom only a few years earlier?  The joy of progress.  That was so yesterday's principles.   

Things progress and devolve in history.  If you think this development regarding white women and rape will be confined to a TV show, think again.  Four years ago the overwhelming response to a professor's notion that white women can't be "raped" by black men, because the white woman still has the power, was overwhelming outrage from all sides that I saw.  Now it's Hollywood getting in on the act and saying 'not so fast'. In another dozen years, white women being told to deal with it if they're raped by a black man might just be the nicest thing that will apply to the situation.

Sanctified by group identity

The thing called 'the Left' does this well.  Pick a group, designate it a victim group, declare it to be the most victimized group ever, insist no Jew in a gas chamber ever suffered the way a billionaire CEO born into wealth who is from that victimized group ever did.  Then more or less dismiss the possibility that anyone from that group could be accountable or responsible for a negative thought or action. 

That's that.  That's what is lamely known as 'identity politics' nowadays.  Back during the Gay "Marriage" juggernaut, it was gays who alone suffered in history.  All of history could be understood as gay suffering at the hands of Christianity (which, apparently, was the only thing in history that didn't celebrate gay).  No slave in leg irons or woman raped in a lonely, isolated field could know the true horror of being gay in the Christian West. And no gay ever did anything wrong, or at least in any way that was connected to being gay.

In 2016, when MeToo# became politically expedient, all of history became The Handmaid's Tale.  The reason why women can't have it all, be all CEOs and stay at home mothers at the same time, is because all of history is a giant patriarchal conspiracy to make the world a giant sexist, misogynist conspiracy against women.  From asking a woman to smile to asking her on a date, it was all rape and assault and discrimination.  Even a black man could be assumed to be a rapist if so accused - not because he's black (too Jim Crow), but because he's a man (#MeToo approves).  And women themselves?  It must be true because not having everything they want couldn't be because of anything they did, they're always pure, always honest and always the victim.  No Jew in a gas chamber ever suffered as women did throughout the ages by virtue of women in a vast, misogynistic conspiracy.

Now the designated identity label is Racism.  Racism against blacks.  Racism by whites against blacks.  In fact, all whites are racist, are defined as racist, are nothing but racists, are blood libel for all racism committed by whites ever - who alone can be racist - and, of course, blacks do nothing wrong, are not accountable for their choices or actions, and anything they do is because racism.  This, of course, being only in America, which is 100% defined by its racism and nothing else. And more than that, a black living in luxury, born in luxury, commanding the livelihoods of thousands of others (including whites, many who may be struggling to get by), is still the true victim. 

So horrible is this that at my sons' college, a comments thread on their university social platform had to be removed.  Why?  Because a well known case from a few years ago of a college student who was white, and who was kidnapped and brutally raped and murdered by a black man who was let go out of incarceration in an attempt to rectify the systemic racism in our court system, came into the debate about BLM.  Turns out some students argued that it was wrong to say she was raped.  Sure, it was horrible what happened, and from what my sons said, nobody suggested otherwise. But saying she was 'raped' and murdered is wrong, since rape is about power.  Apparently even as she gasped her last breaths alone in that field, at the mercy of her rapist and murderer, she still had the privilege, so try 'sexually assaulted' or 'violated', but not raped.  She had the power and the privilege after all. 

Yes, it was removed, and I guess that's something, even though I don't support college censorship today. But it was indicative of what we're seeing and where things are logically going.  This was a closed forum for the college students, and that's what was being said, and believed by those who will be in the societal driver's seat in years to come.  

And that's the power of the Left.  I know there can still be racism, probably driven by many of the big industries and organizations pounding the drum on how racist and evil we are.  Just like there can be sexism.  Or there can be persecution of people who act on their same sex attraction.  Or racism against whites, or persecution of Christians without needing it to be gas chambers.  Evil and sin happen.  

The Left, however, makes it ever and always about the latest Group A vs. Group B, and is able to change just who those labels apply to at the drop of a hat. I thought of that as I saw this interview by Steven Gredanus with Damon Clark Owens. I won't get into the whole thing, but one thing jumped out at me:

“I don’t know why I can’t get this loan; I’ve got an 816 credit score. I’ve got a house that’s worth $500,000, and all my neighbors sell their houses for $6- or $700,000. Or when the third Black family moves into the neighborhood and all of a sudden all these ‘For Sale’ signs go up — is it a coincidence? I don’t know. I take down my pictures of my Black family and my house sold in two weeks after being on the market for six months. These things aren’t just the whining minority.”

You see that?  It could only be racism that he was unable to sell his three quarter of a million dollar home for anything more than a half million dollars.  

Now, perhaps it's my vantage point, but I think some whites struggling to provide food for their children, keep a roof over their heads, or afford the basic necessities of life - and who may be mocked, ridiculed or discriminated against by various outlets due to their station in life - might have a hard time sympathizing with a black man whose suspected experience with racism is due to his inability to get all of the $750,000.00 he thinks his home is worth.  See multi-millionaire, raised in wealth and privilege Colin Kaepernick for an even better example.  

And yet, the Left says the racism and skin color are all that matters.  Nothing else could be the reason he didn't get what he wanted, and it's the only thing that defines him and his experience.  His suffering in that transaction alone is lamentable in our nation today, and we can immediately judge the reasons it happened this way, as easily as a German could judge a Jew in the 1930s.  That man unable to sell his near million dollar home for top dollar is the true scandal of the age, and a million white people starving is not even relevant at this point.  And so many Catholics and Catholic leaders apparently approve this message.

That is the power of the Left.  What will the next designated people demographic group be?  Which group will become 100% victim whose victimhood defines all of history, and is absolved from all responsibility or assumptions of guilt or culpability?  Who knows.  Whichever it is, however, I'm sure we've seen just which Catholics and Catholic leaders will jump on the bandwagon.  After all, we've been watching Catholics jump on this sort of bandwagon for centuries. 

Victory!

In the fight for a return to decent, sensible Catholic blogging.  So Mark Shea, who is quite the fan of Simcha Fisher, linked to a post of hers attacking - nay, assaulting - the website Pewsitters.  Now Pewsitters is obviously a very conservative Catholic site.  Perhaps traditionalists.  Maybe, as they say, Reactionary.  I don't know.  Don't visit it much myself.

Anyway, apparently Pewsitters posted a story about the young girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, in which they say they were raped.  Or admit.  Or confess.  Or whatever.  Pewsitter used the word 'admitted'.  FWIW, I wouldn't have thought twice of it.  They admitted.  They revealed what everyone feared.

Ms. Fisher went ballistic.  She unloaded with 'both barrels.'  Go to hell Pewsitters!  We know your odious hearts!   Mark joined in, praising Simcha and casting venom and loathing as well, explaining that they were in the same camp as those barbaric third world types who still feel a woman raped deserves to be blamed for having sex, even when raped.

The problem?  (I was the first to comment)  Not being a linguist, it didn't seem to me to follow there was only one way to interpret the word 'admitted', on which the entire broadside from Ms. Fisher and Mark relied.  And as such, I reminded everyone that the Catechism is pretty clear how we're supposed to approach others when in comes to interpreting things they've said.

I was quickly answered and accused of hurting my own extensive criticisms of Mark's posts and being some referee apparently.  But soon, a strange thing happened.  Even folks who don't care for Pewsitters began to scratch their heads and say, "You know, the word "admitted" might mean many things, and it could easily mean something not at all bad in this context."  A couple diehards, mostly progressive commenters on Mark's site tried to stem the tide, accusing some of being Francis haters or trying to split hairs, but more and more those posting reactions were a bit disturbed by this.  For Mark and Simcha's hatred was palpable.  Her contempt and loathing of those at the site was clear.  And yet, it was based upon something that, to be honest, I could have read twenty times and never, even with Pewsitter's other posts I looked up, concluded they were suggesting these poor girls were guilty for being raped.

The good news?  Mark pulled the post.  There's still hope.  I admit I'm not a fan of Ms. Fisher.  I'm sure she's a fine person.  But as a blogger, she spends quite a bit of time lamenting the age old lament of those other believers.  And she has no problem casting the most vile verbal assaults and accusations and labels at those she disagrees with on such things as politics, women's rights, fashion, art, you name it.  To be honest, it reminds me of caricatures of old time fundamentalists, albeit with a prolife feminist slant.  Since Mark first began praising her and her blog years ago, I've noticed a long change into what things are now.  Maybe he's just easily influenced.  I noticed a change after he began reading Leah Libresco's blog, and some others, too.  I don't know.

But in any event, he did the right thing.  This was a flat out grievous accusation, a horrid - and unless it's true, slanderous - attack on fellow believers.  Mark was right to remove his post.  I pray he does a better job avoiding such posts in the future.  Whether Ms. Fisher concedes the same and either removes the post or apologizes, we'll have to see.  But for now, at least one right thing has been done.  Kudos to Mark.  May this be the beginning of better and more careful posting in the future.

UPDATE: Sigh.  Mark reposted this.  I had hoped it was removed.  But Mark reposted with what could only be seen as a very, very slight apology.  Essentially an apology that says 'because some charitable readers insit I've judged falsely, I will officially apologize to those odious reprobates at Pewsitter.'  I did what I seldom do, and that's tell Mark about what I think about his blog on the thread.  We'll see.  Keep praying is my opinion.  Perhaps it's Mark being on Patheos.  I don't know.  I just know, as I said in my comment, that Mark's blog has become everything he used to warn against.  And that's never a good sign.

I've copied Ms. Fisher's post in case she does remove it, simply as a point of reference:

"Schoolgirl “admits” being raped?

“Admits?”

I clicked on the link, and that’s what the headline says in the original article, too. I’d say Pewsitter was just unthinkingly reproducing the headline and bears no responsibility for the outrageous implications of that word, but anyone who’s been on Pewsitter’s vast and trackless bad side knows that they routinely make up headlines that suggest whatever they want to suggest. “Admits” is the word they liked.

The hell with them."

How terrible is the existence of women

That's certainly the impression you get from the modern Left and its embrace of transgender activism as a main column of attack against the Western Tradition.  Think on it.  Have you ever noticed that almost all terms and phrases that spin around the post-binary gender lexicon seem to tear away at the unique characteristics of women and womanhood?  Non-menstruating people. Non-Birthing bodies.  Non-lactating.  And of course the converse is true for describing those people formerly known as women.  Notice the dearth of terms like non-testicular people or, well, you get the point.  

It seems aimed at women far more aggressively than men.  Likewise, I know some feminists have chafed at the whole drag queen culture.  From those I've heard complain, they compare it to a misogynic version of black face.  Men dressed as, and presenting themselves as, a sexist caricature of the worst stereotypes of a woman.  

This doesn't include the horrifying things said to such prominent opponents of transgender activism as JK Rowling or Riley Gaines, that never seem aimed at men who oppose transgender activism in the same way.  Have you seen the things written about them?  Woof.  I know it's the age of the Internet and almost anyone can be threatened or attacked online.  But what was stunning was the silence of those on the Left, including the global press that once so adored at least Rowling and her liberal ideals back in the day. There was nothing, or stories about how she was merely receiving pushback over her 'transphobic comments.'  

Now it looks like the Global Government has stepped in and smacked down a center Rowling funded that helps women who are victims of rape.  Apparently, this is because she funded an organization to help women through the trauma of rape and sexual assault and similar violence.  The problem with that?  It's for women.  Because it's set up to help women.  Which made Amnesty International initially condemn the organization as 'anti-rights'.  Which is a euphemism for non-leftist.  Rowling being Rowling apparently fired back, and now Amnesty International is walking back the report, insisting it didn't go through proper protocol. 

But think on it.  Am I the only one who can't help but think it's women, and overwhelmingly women, who are in the crosshairs of the transgender revolution?  But then, it seems women have been in the crosshairs for quite a while.  After generations of being elevated as THE demographic group that could pretty much demand anything and get it, there has been some qualifying there of late.  Remember when I wrote, here, about that trend a few years ago of saying white women can't be raped.  That is, they can be sexually assaulted, and it's bad let me tell you.  But rape is about power, and no matter where she is under a black man violently raping her, she has the power.  There was a kerfuffle here in the Buckeye State when some local professor shared a post in 2020 saying the same thing about a local case of a young white girl named Reagan Tokes who was kidnapped, raped and murdered.  Though that does seem to have passed its sell-by date.  Nonetheless, you do have to wonder.  

Perhaps that's why more women voted for Trump in 2024 than had before.  Much to the chagrin of anti-Trumpers who can't believe they would vote for someone with a reputation with women like Trump.  How?  How could they vote for him when the Democrats are there with open arms? 

Then look at all this.  I mean, it's really hard to believe you give two swinging damns or a hell about women when such horrifying attacks are made against them as you say nothing about it.  Or when wanting to focus on the needs and safety of women is attacked for suggesting there is such a thing as women in the first place.  

Why the Catholic Church looks so bad to the world

Is demonstrated in this story.  The story, carried by Reuters, showcases Catholics who are outraged that Cardinal Mahony, who in some ways has come to exemplify everything bad about the abuse scandal in the Church, will be part of the conclave to elect the next Pope.  I know, it's easy to be critical, judgmental, self-righteous.  We don't need to wish him ill, pain, suffering, or the fires of hell.  And yet, there is such a thing as justice.  There is such a thing as the wrong shall fail, the right prevail.  One of the basic reasons as Christians we rejoice is because God is a just God as well as a merciful God.  Sin must be accounted for, it must be dealt with.  There is a book of life, which suggests strongly a book that is not the book of life, or being absent from the book of life means something.  And yet God is also a merciful God, and sends His Son to die on our behalf, so that those who believe on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Take away the justice, the idea that wrong needs reckoned with, that there is punishment or basic accounting for wrong deeds, and the idea we are saved takes a hit.  Ask anyone in a mainline Protestant denomination that has long abandoned such archaic notions as hell or punishment for sins.  Like it or not, when that happens the Faith itself lacks punch.  After all, God so loved the world He gave His only Son for what?  To save us from what?  So that we might have what apparently we would have anyway?

And if there are eternal results of our sins, there are also temporal consequences as well.  I don't know the details about Cardinal Mahony.  Almost everything that's been published suggests he was part of the grand cover up and obstruction of justice that has been the major hit to the Catholic Church.  As I've said before, no fair minded person would slam the Church because priests raped or abused young people.  That happens when you deal with humans, some do horrible things.  But it's the systemic cover up, the wide and sweeping use and abuse of Church positions of authority that have given the Church the major black eye.  That cover up, that wide ranging attempt to sweep things under the carpet, feeds into the stereotype that the Church is, and always has been, a lumbering bureaucracy of corruption and decadence, where warped individuals abuse and use the power of the ecclesiastical hierarchy to crush the masses while being drunk on the wine of influence and domination.

It also plays into the notion that the Catholic Church is a modern Pharisaical movement that believes man was made for the Canon Law, not Canon Law for man.  It suggests that while kids having the hell raped out of them by priests while bishops and other officials use the power of their office to crush all inquirers is a bad thing, the really important thing is Canon Law 12391298.HSEIF12038940123 that says technically we still should keep the guilty on because otherwise, etc.,etc.,etc.

IMHO, it would be best if Mahony stepped out.  For sheer public relations and to make a point that the Scandal was more than a big mess of an inconvenience to business as usual.  If he doesn't, it would be a feather in the cap of the Church to lovingly set him aside, explain that there is no malice in the decision, and it prays for all involved, or something.  But the idea that he could be within the decision making process of the next Pope poll-vaults beyond the reality that all Cardinals are sinners.  It pushes the idea that all sin is an affront to God the wrong direction.   We don't say that to get people off the hook.  We say that to be humble ourselves, and realize that who are we to judge?  But we don't say it to take away our ability to call evil or even wrong what it is.  Nor do we use it to say a person who may well have been responsible for one of the most scandalous affronts to the Christian faith in generations is no worse off than the person who stole a towel from a hotel.  Keeping things in perspective, standing on justice as well as mercy, and acting as if there are things worth being saved from, will go a long way toward repairing the reputation of the Church in the minds of fair minded people, as well as reminding us all that there are in fact consequences of our actions, hence the praise we give to God for saving us through Christ Jesus.

Deportus interruptus

I'm sure you've heard, if you ignore the mainstream media, about the case in Sweden.  Once again, it turns out it isn't some rightwing social media generated hoax.  Though the Left is going so far overboard, you can forgive those who hear about what is going on and conclude it is a hoax. After all, it couldn't possibly be real.

But, alas, it is. A young Swedish girl was raped by an immigrant.  The immigrant was arrested and charged.  However, the harsh penalty of being deported for having raped a young woman was dismissed.  The reason?  Because while he did rape her, for reasons undisclosed the rape proper didn't last long enough.  I know.  It seems like a joke waiting to write itself.  And if it didn't involve what it involves, you might think the SNL team came up with it.

But it's real.  Of course we all know why.  Sweden, like most of the West, is hellbent on its own destruction.  Anyone not European and eager to help with that destruction takes favored status.  Oh, if you're a woman wanting to tear down the Western Patriarchy, that's good.  But if you run afoul of a more important demographic group, then sorry about your luck. Hence to this young woman and young women everywhere - maybe next time.  The next time we want a political opponent taken out, then you'll matter. 

We've seen this already, the idea that there is no human race or individual, merely intersecting demographics whose worth and value are based on the latest intersecting demographics.  Given the number of minority voters who swung toward Trump in 2024, however, there might be a gradual dawning on these groups that they matter insofar as it is convenient for them to matter, and not a minute more. 

But for now, the ever devolving Left is almost boasting that there is nothing so heinous, so evil, so dishonest, so brutal, and so terrible that it won't defend it, condone it, and even enable it  - as long as it furthers the Left's ends, no matter who is harmed in the process.  Those ends, again, being the end of the Western Christian Tradition including, but hardly limited to, the American Experiment.  

Where was all of this concern about the plight of women back during the Transgender Bathroom issue?

Just asking.  I'm seeing social media and Facebook and other sources inundated by testimonies from women, and lamentations from men, about how women spend their entire lives - every waking moment it would seem - in fear of being sexually assaulted, raped, or harassed.  Thus:

If that is the case, and assuming it didn't just start 12 months ago, which the testimonies suggest is true, then could someone please tell me why the hell everyone wondered what women were whining and complaining about during the Transgender bathroom issue?  Why was it when women suggested they were concerned, not because they were afraid of Transgenders, but because they felt the rules were too loose or not well thought out, that they were met with variations on 'shut up you homophobic b----es!'?  Why was it that pundits and politicians, bloggers and journalists all scratched their heads and said, "Gee, why would women be that paranoid?".

Where were all the women saying this makes up their daily lives back then?  Where were they covering their sisters' concerns?  Where were the pundits and politicians?  Where were the sensitive men?  Indeed, where was Jackson Katz?  Why is it we're stunned that women would be apprehensive about men in their bathrooms, but fully expect that it's an exercise in courage to walk through the door of the workplace?

Yep. 

Or could it just be that we really don't give a rip about women being harassed and assaulted and raped, unless it helps the cause?  If it does advance the agenda, then by jiminy, that's the most important crisis of the age.  But if it doesn't?  Eh, take it like a man girls.

Same with blacks who kill blacks, or homosexuals who kill or rape homosexuals.  I mean, who cares right?  Do any of those ever make a national headline?  Do they ever provoke riots or mass demonstrations?  Do national media outlets ever move their anchor desks to the latest black on black killing?

Their suffering and death, while tragic, perhaps only matters when it helps the cause.  That's certainly the impression I'm getting from this sudden lament across the lands about how women must be forever worried and concerned about what they were called nuts for being concerned about only a couple dozen months ago.

My problems with the #MeToo Movement

Acceptable wisdom in the #MeToo Era

So there's been a lot of hoopla about the #MeToo movement, with almost everyone - Christians included - equating it to the birth of the Christian Faith.  There is almost no critiques that I've seen.  I don't know if it's because men are scared, women don't dare disagree because of the wrongs the #MeToo Movement appears to be righting.  I don't know. But here are a few thoughts of mine on the subject, especially in light of my post about Beth Moore.

1. What about women?  It's as if they are immaculately conceived, devoid of sin, and have contributed not an iota to the whole sexed up, exploit, assault and harass culture.  I've actually heard people ask why a woman would ever lie about being sexually mishandled, as if it's abhorrent to think a woman has ever lied.  Let me be honest, I've worked with women who openly talked about men the way men do when they're called sexist and threatening.  I've seen women behave every bit as bad as men regarding men.  I know there are cases where women have used their positions of power to force men into compromises.  Let's not overlook women who blissfully kept tales of assault and rape secret, not because they were cowering in the corner, but because they wanted to keep climbing the ladder of wealth and power without hurting the relationships with others on that same ladder.  And finally, let's not ignore women who have exploited the sex culture in order to flaunt themselves, entice men, and use all the worst of the sex culture for their advantage.  At some point we must address these, or the entire #MeToo becomes a farce, rather than a principled movement.

2. It's not defined.  I understand what rape is.  Sexual assault seems pretty straight forward.  But beyond that, it's everyone for themselves. I've read multiple pieces by women explaining what does and doesn't constitute harassment or vile, misogynistic behavior.  Know what?  They're nowhere close to agreeing.  Before we rush and start declaring men inherently misogynistic and therefore guilty (in the way we've more or less said that you can always tell a guilty racist by the color of his skin), we need some standards.  At least in the past, witch hunters had the decency to define just what constitutes a witch.

3. It accepts, almost with ease, the old feminist notion that all of history was some horrible patriarchal world of chauvinistic male pigs oppressing and terrorizing women.  It assumes that all of how men and women lived and interacted was an artificially imposed nightmare for women created by this broad, male dominated conspiracy.  It suggests that any differences at all between the roles of women and men are anathema, and purely the result of the evils that men do.  Even among women who are ostensibly conservative, traditional and Christian, it suddenly turns out the first 2000 years of the Faith were pretty detestable because of men, Scriptural models included.

That's what feminists have said for decades and, up to within the last year, it was what anyone but radical Leftists and feminists rejected. Why is it now, almost overnight, the only acceptable way to read history?

4.  Inconsistency.  Are women the weaker sex or not?  Are they the fairer sex or not?  Is it safe to say women and men are inherently different, and clearly men are the stronger, more physically capable by nature, or not?  After all, the reason why we focus exclusively on women as victims is predicated on the idea that, when all things are equal, women stand helpless before men. Obviously women are at the disadvantage; obviously it's men who are the only ones to be concerned about since they alone can do harm.  And yet, turn on a dime and say women are the weaker sex, and you'll still be called a sexist.  How dare you generalize about women being weaker than men!  Well, which is it?  Dave Rule #2:  Never trust revolutions that rely on rejecting and accepting the same proposition in the same sentence.

Nope.  I think the whole #MeToo movement is, at its best, righting the horrible wrongs that were done to women in the 90s.  The 90s were a feast or famine time for women.  Women began speaking out against sexual harassment and assault in the 70s and 80s.  During that time, they were able to roll back notions of mercy and forgiveness for men guilty of sexual harassment, even as our society was all about pity and rehab for almost every other crime.  It peaked with the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas scandal, even though it was impossible for some (including women) to ignore the feeling that the whole thing seemed somewhat political.

Of course once Bill Clinton was elected, all bets were off.  Suddenly we never heard of women being sexually assaulted or raped.  Women who accused Clinton were called liars, whores and trailer park trash.  They were attacked by prominent liberal voices.  They were mocked in popular culture.  Hillary Clinton stood by and watched as, one after another, the women accusing her husband were verbally gang raped.  For years after, the whole 'sexual harassment/assault' went back underground.

You get bonus points if you've noticed that a large number of cases where prominent men have been accused of assault/harassment hail from around the late 90s/early 00s (see the Clinton Years above).  At its best, the #MeToo movement is righting that horribly unjust wrong.  At it's best, it should be a call for massive repentance for all who have taken abusive treatment of women and turned a blind eye, whether for politically expedient reasons or whatever.

Nonetheless, like most things in our technology charged, split second, media saturated era, it has almost immediately poured over into extremism, fanaticism and zealotry.  Men are assumed guilty by accusation.  During the Roy Moore era, we actually had serious discussions in which we were informed that notions of justice, presumption of innocence, due process and even the need for evidence only exist in our courtrooms - for now.  Outside of those rooms, your arse belongs to whichever demographic happens to matter. I literally watched as we were told that it was time to get over this whole 'we need evidence before destroying a person's life' fetish.  Hello, I think we have Salem on the phone.

That is my problem.   In barely a year, traditional, conservative, non-feminist Christians have all but accepted a model of understanding relations between the sexes that, only a year or so ago, they would have dismissed as radical feminism 101.  In addition, we have no ground rules at all.  Beyond rape and assault, there is no clear set of standards as to what does and doesn't constitute sexist or inappropriate behavior, yet we're on a McCarthy-like crusade, with women just wandering around saying 'he did it, He Did It, HE DID IT!', and taken at face value for their efforts.  And to reiterate, I'm seeing absolutely no accountability for women.  It's as if they never existed except to be victims.  It's as if no woman ever did anything wrong, ever exploited the very culture they now condemn, ever lied, or ever played along for their own selfish goals.  It's as if the Blessed Mother has to stand in line since apparently all women are devoid of sin.

Those problems alone would be enough to raise warning flags.  That so many - women and men - are just collapsing and accepting this, or grabbing the flag and running with it, even if they would have scoffed at such things barely a year ago, suggests something went horribly wrong.  Personally, I don't think most men will take it much longer.  And I fear when it finally stops; when men say enough, it will be like a bungee chord backlash, with many just concerns women have being steamrolled by the repercussions.  And that could be worse than the worst of the problems that legitimately need fixed.

The Roy Moore election

More or less, that's what this is.  It's about Roy Moore.  His opponent is irrelevant except as a way to stop Roy Moore, or convict those who support him. 

Donald McClarey looks at some of the more obvious takeaways from this race. 

My hunch is that the support Moore has is a result of many of things things pointed out on the list, but also the speed with which so many called for Moore to resign.  For all those who insist that Moore's responses, statements, or the number of women who have come forward are why they're convinced he's guilty, we must remember that there was a tidal wave of calls for him to quit before any of those things were revealed. 

Within a day, you had people from Washington to the press and liberal punditry, as well as the GOP, saying he needed to quit.  No Moore statements, no subsequent accusations, no evidence - just people who didn't like him using accusations from almost half a century ago to achieved the desired results.

It's just a hunch, but I think there are still people in America a bit skittish about ruining someone's career based on accusations without evidence, even if they're someone we don't like.  For those who are trying to build a new order based on post-truth, post-evidence living, where you can have your life or reputation ruined based only on accusations, that can be tough to understand.  They see it as blind partisans who don't care if he raped girls or not.  Quite frankly, some of the statements made by his supporters do give that impression.

Others, however, seem to stand firmly on the notion that before we ruin someone's life, or call on them to be punished, some form of due process - in or out of the courtroom - needs to be followed.  Somehow, they think, we do need proof before someone is convicted.  And if nothing else, I have to say that's a viewpoint I tend to hold. 

U.S. Court to Pope: Here's your papers sir.

Yes, a U.S. Court has asked the Vatican to issue papers to the Pope. Not being a lawyer or law student, I have no idea what that means legally. I do know that it continues to be a black eye and bloody nose for Jesus; not just the Catholic Church, but to the Christ it represents on earth. I'm the first to say 2/3 of the indignation about the sex abuse scandal has nothing to do with caring about kids and everything to do with attacking the Church or making boat loads of money. We also can't help but admit our sex saturated culture that has caused more human suffering than the black death was able to manage has used the Catholic Sex Scandal to hide its own sins.

With that said, however, we can't ignore that the Church has done almost everything wrong in handling this. From ignoring the signs, to attempting to cozy up to contemporary sensitivities, to playing dumb, to acting like a heartless bureaucracy - the list goes on. While the Church hounds a nun here or school there that goes soft on abortion or homosexuality, suddenly it shrugs its shoulders while priests who raped, or worse, bishops who covered up, continue along their way. All under the heading 'that's just the way we do business here in the old RCC.' That goes about as far as a lead balloon. And it isn't ultimately the Pope, or the Bishops, or the Church that gets the dirt kicked in its face, it's Christ himself.

While we can't expect the Church to be filled with perfect people, while we can't expect sinlessness from our leaders, we should be able to expect they learn from their mistakes and make overcoming this sad chapter in Church history Priority One. They owe that to our Savior, if to no one else.

Actually it's a stupid point Mr. Annett

 So:

The fact is, what Stein said had nothing to do with Annett's point.  Stein is trying to deconstruct the positive influence of the Gospel, as well as using the sins of Christians to dismiss the historical contributions of the Christian Faith. Contributions that were still taught as late as the 1980s when I attended a state university and learned from decidedly not-Christian professors.  That Christians may have raped teddy bears is irrelevant to the role that the Christian Gospel had in revolutionizing the world's attitude about a host of issues, including the worth of the poor, the meek and the sanctity of human life.  Mr. Annett should have reiterated that valid point. 

Instead, Mr. Annett reminds me of the type of person I don't want by my side if I have to charge into battle.  Children of the Christian West have made acquiescence, surrender, compromise, and cowering before opposition our generational trademark.  We have focused so much on the sins of our ancestors, we'd rather let Moloch eat our children than take the chance on being as horrible as those reprehensible old timers in their defense.  We see that in the tens of millions of aborted pregnancies.  We see it in the staggering suicide, homicide and drug overdose rates among our youth.  We see it as our society goes from 'nobody will ever change a minor's body' to proudly declaring the goal of changing our children's bodies - consequences be damned - and parents can head to the cornfield if they don't like it.  

All of these developments are the result of those like Mr. Annett who, when met with a clear attack on the unique heritage of our Faith and the positives of its inheritance, is happy to charge forth with white flag waving.  I don't know if it's cowardice or a lack of belief.  I just know there comes a time when what we call virtue is merely cowardice with a Jesus mask.  

What Roy Moore should teach us

Never, ever trust modern liberalism.  So let's sort this out.  By now, Roy Moore is a child molester.  We know that because he's called it.  And when someone is called something,  it's always true.

Then, he's apparently raped and molested women by the dozens.  How do we know this? Because dozens of women have come out and said so.  So he's obviously guilty, because there has never been a time in history where multiple witnesses were presented against someone who turned out to be innocent. Besides, if he's not guilty, it's like saying the women are wrong or, worse, lying.  And that never happens.

Now, it's worth noting that some things appear to have been conflated in all this.  First, there are only two accusations that I'm aware of that were considered serious up to a few weeks back.  One is his peddling after a girl who, at the time, was fourteen.  That would be well under the legal age of consent back then.  The other serious charge is that he attempted to rape a sixteen year old.  Both of those are very serious charges, and if guilty, he needs to be held to justice.

So far, however, the only corroborating evidence from those two incidents is a yearbook that Moore signed.  The yearbook has not been given over for study or investigation, and some have pointed out a few issues with it that at least suggest the need to review its authenticity, as often happens when evidence is produced.  Yet it has not been turned over to any authorities, nor have any official charges been made against Moore where an actual investigation can take place.

All of the other accusations that I'm aware of are either from a couple women who said he groped them back in the 90s, with no possible proof to back them up, and others who said that, as teenagers of legal age, he attempted to pick them up.

OK.  In other words, they were just seventeen, and you know what I mean.  Which was all the rage in the sex culture.  So let's assume he's innocent of everything, except going after teenage girls.  Up until a few weeks ago, there was only one moral standard for sex: Where two or more consenting individuals of legal age are involved, there is no wrong.  That's fine.  From Jerry Seinfeld to Beatles songs to every rock star going after teenage groupies, there was no moral objection.  Girls saw it as empowerment or opportunity, men didn't mind the fringe benefits.  And society refused to say anything.  After all, if we objected, we were schooled on how, up until about a century ago, teenage girls often married, and older men could marry young girls without others batting an eye.

But all of this is ancient history.  And in the world of modern liberalism, ancient history includes anything up until five minutes ago when it becomes expedient to turn on a dime and change morality, truth, ethics, values, principles, or anything else.

So overnight, an adult man going after teenage girls is child rape.  Rock stars who sang of or indulged in the pleasures of pre-20 sexual escapades (except The Beatles) have been raised up and crucified.  Though still no word on Jerry Seinfeld either.

Which is a bit vexing, if you think on it.  Men weren't just excused when they acted like this, they were encouraged.  In fact, the only ones mocked and derided were those who suggested that there should be more standards regarding sexuality than just 'two or more individuals of legal age.'  But now, through sheer cosmic coincidence, it's not only wrong today, but it has been wrong all along.  All along we were the society of male predators, seizing on young girls, and hapless women being victimized by the men who forced it on them against their will.  Apparently anything under twenty years old - not just seventeen, if you know what I mean - is molesting children.

I know this because Roy Moore is now officially known as a child molester.  All who refuse to condemn him on the notion that no actual evidence has been produced are defenders of child molesting.  It's the way of postmodern discourse. Agree with today's latest truth, or you rape babies.

I noticed this little trend some time ago when watching a few war movies on Memorial Day.  I noticed that MASH, once the film darling of bold liberal revolutionaries, was apologized for and condemned for its awful treatment of women.  BTW, when MASH came out, it was likely only those religious puritan types who would object.  After all, society was opening its mind and, just like ogling teenage girls in song and substance, treating anyone anyway we wanted was all the rage. Until yesterday.  Or today five minutes ago.  It doesn't really matter.

All of this assumes there is actually a desire to establish a common set of values and a common good for society. By now, we should all know better.  If Liberalism has produced anything good or beneficial in the last half century, it's certainly not the idea that principles or values exist.  They don't exist.  Like arguing with some of the trolls back at Patheos, there is no truth or standard, but only that which gets us what we want at the moment.

Don't hate the trolls, by the way.  They merely reflect, in comments boxes, the gist of modern liberalism.  Who cares about truth or principles? All that matters is scoring points and getting what we want today.  If tomorrow, sexting after young girls becomes advantageous for feminist power or a convenient carrot to dangle before a drugged up, sexed up society, I'm sure it will all be fine again.

So lesson learned.  Just because liberalism says you should paint your room red, don't believe it.  Tomorrow, or even later today, when convenient, it might just determine that red rooms are the equivalent of Hitler, and you will be mercilessly condemned for having listen to what liberalism said back in the dark days of ancient history.  The dark days of ancient history being, for liberalism, any time before now.

Grumpy Note: Just in case anyone is wondering, I'm not defending Moore's practice of hanging at shopping malls, wanting to score with 17 year olds, if you know what I mean.  I merely note that, up until Roy Moore, I spent my entire life seeing at best a few raised eyebrows, but most often just shoulder shrugs and high fives when it came to guys getting young girls, even if the girls were teens.  Or, in recent years, older feline women going after those ripped young guys.  My point is how quickly our progressive culture sans principles can declare X good today, and evil later today purely when convenient.  To me, that's not a good foundation for a society.  But that's just me.

James O'Keefe and the Curse of God

It looks like James O'Keefe has been slapped with a 100,000 dollar fine for his video taping mission a while back.  I'm sure you remember, he would go in and pose under false pretenses to extract confessions from such places as ACORN that they were involved in truly heinous and deplorable activities - such as covering for sex slave traffickers. 

Well, Mr. Okeefe didn't read the fine print, and it turns out you can't video tape someone without their consent   There you go.  You break the law, you pay the price.  I'm OK with that.  Furthermore, I admit that the tactics of premeditated deceit and falsehoods in order to trap someone is starting off on a dangerous footing.  Better to find more honest and open ways.  You can still discover what's happening, it might just take a little more golly-gee-wiz on your part. 

Nonetheless, Mr. O'Keefe, like Lila Rose, became a lightning rod across the Catholic blogosphere, with bloggers and commenters jumping in to smack them down as the wretched sinners that they were.  Ridiculous threads erupted as some Catholics declared their willingness to stand by and let a million babies be raped and tortured to death before they would tell a white lie to save them.  

For me, it was the moment when much of the Catholic blogosphere jumped the shark.  It proved that yes, Virginia, there are Catholic fundamentalists, even if they don't act and talk like their Protestant counterparts.  Because nothing screams fundamentalist like someone willing to hamstring their own brothers for the speck in their eye, even as the brothers are attempting to extract the true logs of evil out of the eye of the world.  That happened a lot in my own Evangelical tradition.  I can't tell you how many times someone with the best of intentions threw up their hands and gave up because they might have done something wrong, and it was the failure, rather than all the best intended efforts, that everyone chose to focus on.

Even that wouldn't be so bad if those who decide to unleash the gates of Hell on an eye's speck aren't then typically inclined to want to ignore whatever logs are in their own eyes. That James O'Keefe lied is a sin for the ages, and proof of how horribly sinful all those other Catholics are who don't see his vile failings.  When I sin, of course, it's nothing of the sort.  I sin with the best of intentions   I expect nothing but grace, mercy and understanding when my sins are forgiven by the Almighty.  That James O'Keefe may have sinned with the best of intentions, of course, is beside the point.

Now that Mr. O'Keefe has been fined, I expected some in the Catholic blogosphere to rise up and say 'HA!  That'll show you!'  Even though the verdict had nothing to do with the sin that outraged the Catholic blogosphere, it would be enough to say the Curse of God is upon him for sinning in not the way I sin!  It could just as easily have been 'James O'Keefe got run over by a dump truck   HA!  That'll show you!'  

And yet, all this just went by me as nothing other than what I expected.  When I saw the headline, I knew that some bloggers would react the way they reacted.  But what did shock me is finding out that places that only recently sang the mercy and forgiveness and understanding for the late, great Hugo Chavez, now find themselves removing all quarter from their take on O'Keefe's fortunes.  Really?  So we praise God because Chavez died in the bosom of Mother Church, we pray for Chavez, and we look at Chavez as a victim of vile and contemptible right wing nut jobs in America who don't know how to be truly Catholic, but we crow over the unrelated punishments of O'Keefe in order to send a message?

I know, I know.  I would be told that nobody was saying Chavez was a great guy.  We're just wanting O'Keefe to follow the straight and narrow.  We all want the mercy of God for ourselves.   But when stepping back and looking at the big picture, I just can't help but say there is certainly a disconnect with my understanding of right and wrong, and grave sin and venial sin.  I can't help but wonder if we're losing perspective, and beginning to pull a Col. Nicholson, prepared in our own righteousness to swallow a camel in order to show why those other Catholics are so wrong for straining gnats incorrectly.  I could be wrong, but at least as it seems to play out in the words and emphases in certain blogging segments. 

Death takes a holiday

Or so we can hope.  Looks like the Susan G. Komen for the Cure charity has severed its ties to Planned Parenthood.   Kudos to the brave ones!  Expect those who are more concerned about aborting babies than curing breast cancer, however, to attempt an end run.  Sure, they will say it is because of the breast screenings that Planned Parenthood does.  Fact is, there are places women with no money can go for help with that - I know first hand.  The real issue is that abortion is the foundation upon which the post-Christian progressive movement is based.

Think about it.  Every day, in the name of this 'progressive' ideology, we hear more and more about how folks want the government to regulate this, that, and everything else (but sex).  We need more regulations on what we eat, wear, drive, how we walk, talk, sleep, worship, think, believe, act, what foods we can have, how we raise our children, and any one of a million other restrictions. What idiot generation would comply with that?  Well, there's the meat and circus, the peace and bread.  It's sex, tons and tons of sex.  Glorious, unadulterated, consequence-free, responsibility-free sex.  Group sex, orgies, online pornography, threesomes, one night stands, three night stands, one night stands with three people, why the list goes on and on!

Of course there are STDs, and HIV/AIDS, but those mostly are ignored nowadays, or through billions of dollars of drugs and medications, we can reduce their effects.  Birth control can reduce the chances of pregnancy, but there's still a chance....a slight chance, that it can happen.  This possibility of Woman having her social life, her financial future thwarted by nine months of carrying the result of one's libido is too much of a threat, enough to make the fantasy promises of the progressive movement give at least most people cause to think.

And that's where abortion comes in.  It's the safety net.  The final score.  The ultimate promise from our post-Christian progressives.  Sure, most would prefer not to have an abortion.  But that would somehow mean we have to restrain ourselves, think of others, and live a life of some measure of discipline and sacrifice.  And we can't have that in the post-Christian Utopia!  So abortion is waved as the ultimate 'don't worry, just do it.'  Over a million a year, and the vast majority having zilch to do with dying mothers, raped girls, or deformed babies doomed to die.  The vast majority there so that the mom can continue to jump on every Tom and Harry's you-know-what while not letting the disease known as pregnancy interfere with the climb up the financial ladder. 

Some have speculated that abortion, being a multi-billion dollar industry with all its sideline venues involved, is all about money.  That Planned Parenthood, and others behind abortion rights, are in it for the money.  I disagree.  It's about seizing our civilization and replacing it with tyranny that promises orgasms and drugs to a generation intoxicated on the promises of narcissism and hedonism.  Make it illegal to make money off abortions tomorrow, and I can almost promise that the same who will launch assault after assault on the Susan G. Komen for the Cure charity today, would do the same two days from now.  It's about the power to seize a civilization (and BTW, once the power is gained, expect the land of hedonism and narcissism to be reigned in just the same).

Meanwhile the Telford Child Sex Scandal continues to pick up steam

You can be forgiven if you haven't heard of this.  I'll admit I hadn't heard of it until a month or so ago.  Unlike the Priest Abuse Scandal, which saw the media descend on the Church like soldiers hitting the beaches at Normandy, and occupied headlines, front pages, special broadcasts, weekly series, A-list Hollywood productions, and endless lawsuits, this has remained under the radar.

Cosmic coincidence no doubt. Whether the Left really believes or doesn't believe its own propaganda, that only the Christian West and America are evil and everyone else is lovely, I don't know. If Leftists think that, once they've ground Christian civilization to dust, they'll just turn on the next monotheistic bad guys and do the same to them, I'm not sure.

Whatever it is, Muslims can do and say and advocate almost anything and receive barely a wrist slap from the Left.  Most often, the Left bends over backwards to avoid discussing or even speaking of such things.  Sometimes they'll just turn things upside down and find a way to blame the Western Christian tradition. True, technically the Left joins various rights organizations in condemning the manifold human rights violations across the Islamic world.  But in a strange twist, it sees no  connection with Islam as a whole, and seizes upon any movement in a positive direction as proof that nothing needs to be said or done.  Islam rocks.

This isn't to say that Muslims are all rapists or that Islam is about raping girls or conquering the world.  Most Muslims, when weighed ounce for ounce, are like most Christians, Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, or anyone else.  They wake up in the morning, get ready for the day, hope the best for their kids, go to work, get stuck in traffic, have to mow the yard, pay bills and go to the ball game.

FWIW, so did Nazis.  We're all human, but some can be rather bad.  And even if the bad ones are a minority, that minority can sometimes dupe a majority that is too concerned with college loans and wedding dates.  But even the good ones don't all see the end of the human game in the same terms.  And it's the height of arrogance mixed with ignorance to believe everyone in the world wants a nice, post-Western, post-Christian secular Leftist socialist vision of the world once the dust settles.

Which is why, perhaps, when stories like this happen, they receive so little attention.  As has been demonstrated time and again, when various 'designated minorities' run afoul of the narrative by being murdered, attacked, raped or whatever, by other 'designated minorities', then that's when they are also swept under the carpet.  Just ask yourself, if this was equal in every way, but was connected to the Catholic Church, or some other European Christian sect, do you think you'd hear so little about it?  Do you really think so?  Perhaps I'm being unfair, but there's a point when credulity just can't withstand the overwhelming evidence.

American racism done right

So we had this horrible story, about a raging black woman who, in a fit of anger, pushes an elderly white man off a bus.  Sadly for the man, he sustained injuries from which he was unable to recover.  He died shortly afterwards, the woman being charged in the assault.

And yet, not one story have I found from media outlets suggesting even once that this could be a hate crime.  Truth be told, I've found few stories in mainstream outlets covering it more than once.

That, my friends, is racism socially sanctioned.  Had this been a white person (esp. a man) pushing a black person (esp. a woman) to her death, you bet your bottom dollar it would be around the clock coverage.  It immediately would be assumed to be a hate crime, pending investigation.  Charges of racism and America's vile racist past would be floated.  You might even have protests and vigils popping up in Las Vegas or around the country. Perhaps join the growing movement to eradicate the memory of our white racist founders would gain steam.  And finally we'd find out it was all Trump's fault.

As it is, I've barely heard about it.  No vigils.  No headline news.  In fact, few national outlets covered it at all.  No condemnations really.  Certainly no suggestions of racism, bigotry or hate on the part of the accused.  Just a few stories and a couple social media posts.  And one old man who died violently. And that is all.

That is socially constructed racism in action.  This is the old Hollywood movie that has brave white explorers climbing a mountain with African porters close behind.  Suddenly, one of the porters slips and falls to his death.  The white explorers then scream out in terror: "Oh no!  There go the medical supplies!"  It didn't happen that often in movies, even in the early 30s.  But it was there.  Racism did exist in America, even if not in the cardboard, one dimensional way described by the Left.

But all we're seeing now is the same exact racism, but with different nameplates.  The Left has spent many long years convincing us not to care unless it impacts us.   If others die of AIDS, terrorism, fall through the cracks due to globalization, it's just the sacrifice we have to make.

Likewise, we've been taught to quickly see if we can exploit human death and suffering, or if we should just shrug our shoulders and move on.  The most egregious of this in recent months being the sad case of young Jazmine Barnes, whose death at the hands of a white man in a pickup truck was round the clock news for four days until the perpetrators turned out to be two black men involved in drugs.  Almost overnight every major news outlet and left wing publication dropped the story like a hot potato.

But we've been watching yet another development.  This is one that opponents of the concept of 'hate crimes' warned would happen if we went that direction.  Inevitably, we would begin saying a woman kidnapped, raped and tortured was really wronged if it was done for racist reasons.  And yet, even in the early days, we began noticing that the door to hate crime charges often only swung in certain directions.  So if the woman was white and the rapists black, can anyone ever really know?  But if she was black and the rapist white, then who needs and investigation?  Obvious it is a hate crime. So now, today, we literally will have some mock the notion that we should care about suffering or even death, if those doing so are not part of the designated demographics that matter.

Sure, news agencies may pick up this story some more if there are developments.  But how will they cover it?  In a series of disgraceful episodes, cases of white Trump supporters kidnapped, tortured, killed or even five police officers murdered by a black man hellbent on murdering white people were addressed almost with a pro/con attitude.  That is not how Ferguson, Baltimore or the Charleston shootings were addressed.  Nor was it how Tuscon was addressed.  It was how the Washington congressional shooting was addressed.  Likewise, the coverage between the Sri Lanka church bombings and the New Zealand mosque shooting couldn't have been more different.

But enough of this.  Who are we fooling?  Whether the Left really thinks all whites are racists or gives a damn about blacks or even mass shootings is anyone's guess.  What is patently obvious is that how the Left/Press covers such stories is radically inconsistent, and whether intentional or not, it is beginning to ingrain in our society - as well as our dear religious leaders - a whole new era of bigotry, prejudice, discrimination and apathy about human suffering unless it ends up impacting ... them.

Good for Bernie Sanders

So David Koch, of the infamous Koch Brothers, died.  I'll be honest, I don't know much of him.  I know he is infamous because, despite being a multi-billionaire, he spent most of his time supporting the GOP and opposing Democrats.  Most big name billionaires today, of course, are hardcore Democrats all the way.  So naturally he had a very controversial reputation.

When news came that he died, there were several instances where people said what you can expect to be said nowadays, that they were glad he was dead.  Some rejoiced.  Some cast heaps of insults on him and laughed at the fact that the first of these two wretches would rot in the soil.

This is because, to them, he blasphemed the only god and gospel worth following.  By doing so, he showed himself to be a murderer and killer, a rapist and thief, a man who caused disease, famine, poverty, depression, suicide, and just about anything else bad.  How could he not?  Only the god of the Leftist State can bring hope and salvation, fix our problems and make right the world.  Knowing this, and refusing to follow the Left, he therefore could be called out as the evil killer of babies and the innocent that he was.

I don't know.  Maybe he was all those things.  Maybe in his spare time he raped women and murdered babies.  Maybe he was some crazy rare billionaire who made money by screwing the little guy and pocketing the extra money for himself.  Hard to believe, but it could be true. 

Nonetheless, as the Left becomes increasingly open in its hatred of those who fail to worship at the altar of its god, and increasingly brazen about calling for the eradication of rights, liberties and even lives of those who dare question the efficacy of the left's economy of salvation, it's been a bit chilling hearing the cheers and celebrations that were once reserved for the death of an Osama bin Laden or Adolf Hitler.  In fact, I remember a time when people chastised those who cheered the death of Osama bin Laden.  We are supposed to be past that; too civilized to cheer the death of a fellow human being no matter what he did.  Ah, another case of here today, gone later today ethics that we've come to expect in our post-modern world.

So kudos to Bernie Sanders who, as a crowd at one of his events broke into cheers and great rejoicing over the death of that murderous bastard Koch, told them to cease and desist.  Maybe it's his age, or maybe as fanatical a socialist leftist he is, he still draws a line between his left-wing politics and the new god of the Left, but he did right by my book.  And when someone is in the right, he deserves a thumbs up.  Something apparently Koch never was, given how few of those on the Left - Christian or otherwise - seem to have even a scrap of good to say about him.

Like betting on last year's Superbowl

Is saying you now think Bill Clinton should have resigned.  It means nothing.  It's like admitting you shouldn't have been drinking and driving after you kill someone, or that you shouldn't have been playing around with that gun after accidentally shooting someone.  The damage is done. 

It was during the 90s that the credibility of the media all but ended.  It was in the 90s that the American left perfected the notion that all truth, morality and principle was malleable for the purpose of political gain. 

With Anita Hill, we learned no woman should ever be told she is lying when accusing a man of sexual misconduct.  Then we spent eight years watching one woman after another ravaged and verbally raped by the same people who made that claim, all in defense of Clinton and his administration.

Then we watched with horror as the press made it clear its job was to back up Clinton and keep him in office at all costs.  First, it made it obvious that the "Right Wing Conspiracy" was its preferred narrative, and continued with that until the Blue Dress.  At that point, after a few weeks of shock and anger at having been played like fools by the Clintons, the press circled the wagons and taught America that it was time to be like other countries, and stop caring about character, morals, values, and truth where presidents and elected officials are concerned.

And so it's been.  In the last eight years, it's become an adventure to see who matters, what is true, and what or isn't good and ethical on any given day.  A single black man might have been killed by a police officer who could have been white, and we spend a month hearing the outrage.  Thousands of black men are killed every year, and we barely hear it mentioned.  Women express concern about the Transgender push, they're told to shut up and stop being stupid bigots.  Two years later, and women say every day is nightmare of terror because of men, and we take their concerns as gospel truth.  Legal age and consent are all that matter.  Ages and age differences suddenly define good and evil.

So now, in the feeding frenzy, lynch mob, witch hunt, and inquisition mentality in which we say that anyone outside of a US court can have their lives ruined on a simple accusation sans evidence, and in light of the fact that the majority of big name culprits in the tidal wave are decidedly to the left of center, we have a growing list of politicians proudly and bravely declaring that the chiefest of all culprits in our last 25 years of being a moral wasteland should have paid for his dalliances.

Sorry, but that doesn't inspire me, it embarrasses me.  It embarrasses me to think that somewhere, Americans became as stupid as we were always told they were, though most old timers would never have bought such rubbish.  It embarrasses me to realize they really think we're that dumb.  It embarrasses me to know that many likely are.  And if we're not that dumb, we're fine with embracing dumb because we still love the great evil of our age, the evil that says there is no truth or morality, only that which is convenient at the moment.

"Forgive these wild and wandering cries,
Confusions of a wasted youth;
Forgive them where they fail in truth,
And in thy wisdom make me wise."

Confusions of a wasted youth indeed.  As my boys said when watching a Volkswagen commercial that still celebrates the moral cesspool that was Woodstock: 'What do we expect?  They're still in charge!' (meaning the ones portrayed in the commercial).  I had no rebuttal.

Mark Shea gets a lesson

In good old Catholic America hate.  Mark has written before on the role of patriotism under the heading of 'love thy neighbor.'  Of course patriotism does not mean we must blindly support everything our country does.  Our country is a country.  If the Church, the body of Christ, can be defined in our modern age by a scandal in which thousands of priests raped the hell out of minors while their superiors used the  power of their office to hide the fact, a country is more than able to have its share of blunders.  America has had its share.  I needn't go over the examples.  If you attended public school within the last 30 years, the history of our country increasingly has focused on those wrongs.

But here's the thing.  There's healthy confession: Father, forgive me, for I...[insert sin here].  Then there is unhealthy confession: Forget it Father, I'm beyond hope, I suck, I'm a loser, I deserve to die [followed by inserting shotgun in mouth and pulling trigger].  For various reasons, not the least of which are those that have agendas behind them, a growing segment of our population has taken the later approach to the sins of America.

So instead of a healthy desire to learn from mistakes, we have warped and twisted accounts retold for the sake of beating down the legacy of our country.  Some, no doubt, hope to replace this tarnished legacy with their own ideals.  Others just like bashing it, having spent so long doing so, they now hate and loath this country and see no value in it, nothing worth redeeming.  The best of them, of course, leave the country and live elsewhere.  The true hypocrites do nothing to change anything, all the while sucking on the bloated tit of America's waning prosperity, and bitching all the way to the bank at how disgusted they are to live in such a deplorable culture.

Self-fulfilling prophecies being what they are, America does, at times, look to be emerging as all the horrible things that people have complained about for years.  I've heard Big Brother my whole life, but never has it applied more readily than today.  I've heard debauchery and decadence in our democratic society, but it seldom has passed not only what we do today, but what we insist on legislating.  So yes, like the person told they are a loser everyday eventually becomes the loser, America is becoming everything that those who have hated it said they hated it for.

Thus in Mark's blog, on a simple throw out to the veterans, instead of getting the usual 'God bless our troops', he gets a couple of visitors whose contempt for our country is well documented; those who believe that America is the source of all sin in the world - or at least write as if they do.  There are others who frequent his blog.  As Mark, for whatever reasons, has focused increasingly on the bad of our country and its past, his blog has attracted those who are more than happy to agree.  I'm shocked so few jumped in on the bandwagon with today's post.  But it's what you get, and it's a shame for Catholics.  After all, one prejudiced claim in the age of immigration was that these papists would come to America, bleed it dry, then kick the empty husk when they were done.  I'd hate to prove those anti-Catholic bigots right.  But reading the Catholic blogosphere, there appears to be some who have made proving them true their life's ambition.

Our ministry of lies

There was an old joke a few years ago that went something like this:  If you're offended by the team name of the Washington Redskins, then there's a big chance you're not Native American.  That's because very few polls were mentioned regarding what Native Americans actually thought about the controversy.  When they were polled, we typically found most Native Americans didn't care, or actually liked such names (Washington Redskins, Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians).  

But like black Americans who love America, or women who question feminism, or former homosexuals, or those regretting sex change surgeries, or Muslims who insist Islam has problems, or Chinese defectors who speak of the horrors of modern Communist China - they are the Left's unpeople.  They simply don't exist.  If they get too loud, like African American senator Tim Scott, then it's torrents of insults along the lines of Uncle Tom (or the preferred Uncle Tim), or House N----r, or similar kindly labels.  

Obviously, a sane and mature individual of good will can see fast that these groups, and those in them, matter not a single bean for the modern Left/Media.  Just like the poor.  Ever since the Covid lockdowns, the Left/Media has acted as if no one is poor in America.  I counted on one hand minus two fingers the number of news stories that zeroed in on the catastrophic toll that the lockdowns took on the poor and lower rungs of society.  The media preferred feel good stories about how the latest celebrity or millionaire turned their mansion's foyer into an impromptu putting range to pass time while obediently abiding by the latest Covid mandates. 

Same with today.  Staggering inflation rates, food pantries depleted because people can't afford groceries, rent and housing off the scale, the rising cost of automobiles, young parents unable to afford basic necessities for their babies, record setting credit card debt (akin to what preceded the 2008 collapse).  And how are these handled?  When covered at all, they're tied to some 'how communities can help' or 'here's the silver lining' or 'the good news is!'.  No connecting the dots and suggesting there is anything significantly wrong with the economy. 

Really.  A couple weeks ago, one of our local news stations demonstrated this nicely.  There was a commercial for a special city-wide fundraiser to help raise money for parents who can't afford diapers (over 50% unable to do so per the commercial).  Then the first story following the commercial was how one of the economic indicators looked awesome, mostly because of a rise in manufacturing due to government spending on infrastructure.  Things are looking promising for Bidenomics, or so they said.  And the immediate story after that was how local agencies are coming together to help people in the area who are unable to afford food for their families due to inflation.  Why does the press present such a threefold 'people are unable to live - economy is looking awesome! - people are starving' story template?  Because a liberal Democrat is in the White House, that's why.  Let's not make it difficult people.

Again, the Left - and perhaps due to the growing number of editorials and posts extolling the virtues of Marx and his ideals, we can start calling a spade a spade - doesn't care.  It cares not if blacks are murdered by the truckload on an annual basis.  Women and girls raped only matters depending on who does the raping.  Hispanics killed?  The poor starved?  Or the fate of anyone in any such designated group?  It cares insofar as they join the coalition to destroy the Western Democratic tradition and the Christian Era.  Or if their suffering can be exploited to do so.  Otherwise?  See the Unperson mentioned above. 

That's why it's heartening when you see stories like this, though not surprising.  A group of Native Americans are suing to have the name Redskins restored to the Washington team. 

The family of the eponymous Aunt Jamima brand was outraged when their matriarch's name was erased from the product that made her famous.  Likewise, the family of the founder of Land O'Lakes was equally upset that the famous image of an Indian woman on the packaging was erased.  Because, according to them, it was put there by the founder due to his love for and admiration for Native American people.  

In the case of the linked to story, those Native Americans who were polled, who expressed support for such names as the Redskins, and were flagrantly ignored by the Left/Media because they were of no use to the destruction of American heritage, are fighting back.  Good for them I say.  

The Native Americans portrayed by the modern Left today never existed.  They aren't even fan fiction.  They are more fever dream fantasy fiction on acid. But the real Native Americans were a rich and fascinating culture that should be studied, celebrated when deserving, and listened to.  And not only those who resent and hate the West and would join the Marxists and work for its destruction. But the other ones as well.  We'll see how this goes.  I'd be shocked if the Leftwing media covers it, but you never know.