Well, it is shorter than the last one.
The Big picture
Blm started a thread about Opus Dei, and someone responded that it was anti-Catholic Church. I posted a couple of articles about Abramoff ties to terrorist activities and someone deemed the post anti-Semitic. And all this left me thinking about the big picture.
Yesterday Lynn Swann decided to run for governor of PA because the Democratic Party has "taken the African-American vote for granted." Yeah, the GOP is the party of civil rights (sarcasm). Did he miss the last presidential election? I bring this up because it easy to overlook the big picture. The Republicans know this and push these buttons all the time. They keep people who aren’t paying close attention focused on the small stupid s***.
And in that realm phobias and spin keep people from veering too far from conventional wisdom---what the media tells them. I seriously believe people are extremely terrified of looking at the big picture of most situations for fear of being labeled loony. But does anyone really think the Bush family and the fundies could have infiltrated the entire political, business and social structure of America with small-time spin and dirty politics? Intelligent design?
What’s is so different about weighing the facts to dispel the propaganda fed to us by the MSM and weighing the facts to determine the validity of certain claims? Knowing what we know about Bush, there are those who would still say it’s all bogus because no one like that would be allowed to get that far and become president. Ignorance of the facts is proof that weighing everything doesn’t sap intelligence. One of the only reasons I fear spin and misinformation is that people don’t pay attention. Spin and misinformation often are loaded with discrepancies or holes---watch how Bush and the Republicans operate: Information being redacted from reports, withheld and manipulated to distort the facts.
Are the Republicans going down and taking Bush with them?
Not looking at the big picture, IMO, is exactly why Bush is where he is.
I said to my brother after the 2004 election: trust me, within the next couple of years Bush’s impeachment will be a part of the discussion. I mentioned all the names in play in Ohio and my own theory about the interconnection of all these events: the election, the money scandals, the power tripping and suspicious meetings members of Congress were having with local and government officials (I’m still waiting for the DeLay/Feeney/NASA connection to be exposed). Anyway, my brother and I have gone through these goings on at every stage. Initially, he didn’t buy that the all powerful Republican crooks could be brought down by anyone. But power shifts, toes get stepped on, mutiny happens and next thing you know dynasties crumble. That is what I believe is happening now. But there is a sinister side still: the uncertainty that still lingers because some key things have not happened. For example, where are the independent investigators in all of this? Democrats in Congress are still being stonewalled. Good news, there will be elections in 2006.
Anyway, my brother and I had another conversation last night, and he’s coming around. Abramoff’s indictment and guilty plea brought him around, somewhat. He’s still iffy about the final sentencing. He doesn’t believe they’ll be taken out of play for good (which equates to many years behind bars). So, he’s taking a wait and see approach.
But getting back to my original point about the big picture, maybe it’s too big a picture for people to comprehend or accept. Denial, by ignorance or stupidity as the wingnuts display, is a terrible thing. I wonder what kind of experience a person who isn’t all that politically aware would have browsing DU, or any politically driven forum?
What we see unfolding is part of the big picture, and, IMO, the bigger picture may never see the light of day. So, I don’t understand not opening one’s mind to the possibility that anything can happen, especially when signs start to point to these occurrences. The thing is, it doesn’t hurt and one might actually learn something. Look at the stolen election. In some people’s mind that’s as crazy a notion as any.
Interestingly enough, after I spoke to my brother, I came back online and the first thing I discovered was an article linking Tyco CEO Koslowski to Abramoff (thread link below). I waiting for the connection Qwest (maybe in the NSA/telecomm link, who knows?).
The Catholic Church (disclaimer: I’m not Catholic and my knowledge here is based on limited personal experience)
The Catholic Church has its issues, and the dichotomy within was brought to light in the presidential campaign. Can someone be Catholic and have an open mind? Is it the Church’s doctrine to stifle free thinking?
Some of the things I witnessed during the 2004 campaign is scary. So I want to know more. I welcome blm’s insights. I will read anything, some I’ll take with a grain of salt until I begin to see a pattern that makes sense. Sometimes the first paragraph or two turns me off, gives me the feeling I’m reading the writings of a loony (Ann Coulter). People can spin facts into fiction, but I really believe that as more information come out, the facts can be sorted out. If the holes linger too long, one can resign and accept the conventional wisdom, even when doubts persist, or keep searching for the truth. The other option is to chock it up to we’ll never know, it’s a great position when the full story isn’t known and the evidence trail goes cold.
I came across this today (one very minor reference to Kerry):
The ‘state of the archdiocese’
Last summer, in a survey conducted by The Catholic Telegraph, a number of readers suggested that Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk offer area Catholics an annual update on both the temporal and spiritual affairs of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. Accordingly, he sat down recently with editor Tricia Hempel to discuss such matters.
Some readers have suggested that the archbishop offer a "state of the union" report. It seemed as though January is the usual time for such things. So if you were to deliver a state of the union address today, what would you tell the people of the archdiocese?
I would say that we have learned that people’s faith is very important to them, and that, of course, is a central reality I’m very grateful for – we learned that from the survey done by the communications office last year.
We’re still hurting from the sex abuse, in terms of money and esprit de corps. We will continue to offer whatever psychological help is needed by victims. I continue to be dreadfully sorry and ashamed of all that happened to the victims; I wish I could undo it all.
The financial problems we are facing are not terminal problems; they can be dealt with, and we are taking steps to deal with them. For example, we are making new efforts to collect $28 million in unpaid debts from our parishes.
We’ve hired a consulting firm to help us get a handle on what more we can do.
We’ve been hurt by fact that the Archbishop’s Annual Fund Drive was off by 20 percent. I found that very discouraging.
snip...
You’ve been a priest for 46 years, a bishop for 31 years, and Archbishop of Cincinnati for 23 years. How has the archdiocese changed in that time?
I think that like the rest of the country, the archdiocese is probably more secularized than it was when I became archbishop in 1982, partially because of some of the church experiences we’ve had and also because of the media conditioning we all experience, partially because of the rise of computers and internet. It gives people access to worlds they would never have known about, cared about or dared to enter (e.g. on-line pornography). Likewise, in movies – I don’t go to a lot of movies, but I read a lot of reviews. Movies present not only pictures and philosophies, but whole lifestyles in a way that was not appropriate in 1982.
We’ve been through some economic ups and downs – difficult economic times are often difficult for the church. There has been a decreasing sense of consensus in the church, e.g. the John Kerry situation last year during the election.
I think lay people (many of them, at least) seem to see themselves as more sophisticated in their general life than they used to, including their faith. I am not sure they really are. Many people have a very strong sense that "It’s my right to determine what I’m going to believe, say what I’m going to say," but do they know what they’re talking about? It’s very hard to come by a thoughtful, serious, educated, friendly discussion-cum-disagreement.
Our society, the U.S., and western Europe in general, puts a very high value in thinking for yourself, speaking one’s mind, the right to disagree, but it does not put a corresponding obligation on people to provide oneself with the equipment needed in order to do that.http://www.catholiccincinnati.org/tct/jan0606/010606state.html Kozlowski
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2351670&mesg_id=2351670Abramoff and al-Arian: Lobbyist's "Charity" a Front for Terrorism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2352126Lynn Swann
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15875278&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6Your thoughts?