John Hinderaker concludes his "Biker Girl Campaigns For McCain" post:
What I really wanted to point out is that while campaigning for McCain, Governor Palin displayed a hitherto-unnoticed (by me, anyway) fondness for leather Wow. That's all, really. Just…wow.
That's my colleague Jeffrey Goldberg's description of a brilliant Middle East reporter quoting a senior administration official dismayed by Dennis Ross's sympathy for Netanyahu's coalition problems over East Jerusalem. I don't think even Jeffrey can dismiss Laura Rozen as not knowing what she's writing about. So he argues that an Obama official has "hi-jacked" her blog. Goldblog calls this Obama official's statement an accusation of "dual loyalty," of "treason," of the fruit of a "neo-Lindberghian climate". But isn't the comment conceivably, substantively true?
After all, a united Jerusalem under Israel's exclusive control for ever – Netanyahu's and Palin's and Cheney's position – has been Ross's position in the past:
"It's also a fact that the city should not be divided again. That's also a fact."
A fact. A "should" is an "is." And yet Ross simultaneously says – call it the neo-neo-con shoe-shuffle – that Jerusalem's final status should be left to negotiations. Only one of those positions can truly be his, right?
To say that the city that Israel now controls entirely should not be divided again does not mean, I presume, that Ross thinks all of Jerusalem should one day be given entirely to the Palestinians. He co-founded AIPAC's Washington Institute for Near East Policy, for Pete's sake.
So Ross's view is that Jerusalem should be retained entirely by Israel, as is the obvious position of Netanyahu and much of the pro-Israel lobby. And this, for Ross, is a fact. It is not open even to debate. It is even what one might call a fact on the ground. So Ross's publicly stated position is ineluctably at total odds with his president's, and Obama's demands on stopping new settlements in East Jerusalem must make little sense to him. No wonder he is "far more sensitive to Netanyahu's coalition politics than to U.S. interests." It's because of what he believes.
And he has every right to believe this. And Laura Rozen has every right to report his colleagues' understandable frustration.
I have no idea what this might mean in the long term politically, but it's intriguing to learn that 48 percent of the uninsured identify as Independent politically, compared with only 17 percent of Republicans and 31 percent of Democrats.
A serial child-rapist, cult-leader and secretly married confidant of John Paul II and Benedict XVI is finally disowned by his own cult. John Paul II called this multiple child-rapist "an efficacious guide to youth". Of course, he was never subjected to any criminal sanctions, was protected by Woytila and Ratzinger for years, even as they knew full well what was going on, and the euphemized statement just released is what the Catholic hierarchy believes is contrition. In 2006, the Vatican decided not even to subject him to canonical hearing because of his advanced age. So if you live long enough, and bring enough cash into the church, you can be allowed to molest countless children and your only punishment is an invitation to spend the rest of your life, supported by the church, in "prayer and penance, renouncing to any public ministry”.
The person who approved of this non-punishment is now the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the American Cardinal Levada. Punishing Maciel for decades of child-rape with a paid retirement and invitation to prayer was also approved directly by Pope Benedict XVI.
But it is important to remember that this child-rapist was also defended openly and strongly by several leading American theoconservatives. Richard John Neuhaus wrote he knew Maciel's innocence as a matter of "moral certainty." Even when the Vatican finally asked Maciel to step away from public ministry, Neuhaus commented:
"There is nothing in the Vatican statement that suggests that the word penance is meant as a punitive measure. It wouldn't be the first time that an innocent and indeed holy person was unfairly treated by Church authority."
The other leading American intellectuals who endorsed Maciel on the Legion's own website were George Weigel, Mary Ann Glendon, William J. Bennett and William Donohue. To his credit, Weigel has since reversed himself but, so far as I can find, has never personally apologized or taken responsibility for having backed Maciel to the hilt previously. Let us review the record:
8 March 1997 Father Richard John Neuhaus writes: “One cannot help but be greatly impressed by both the discipline and the joy evinced by so many young men who have followed the vision of Father Maciel in surrendering their lives to Christ and His Church. I confidently pray that your apostolate will survive and flourish long after these terrible attacks have been long forgotten.”
Deal Hudson in Crisis calls on the Courant to “withdraw its false article and apologize to Father Maciel, the Legionaries of Christ, and faithful Roman Catholics.”
30 April William Bennett writes, “The flourishing of the Legionaries is a cause for hope in a time of much darkness. I look forward to continuing my involvement with and support of the Legion of Christ.”
23 May Mary Ann Glendon writes, “The recent revival of long discredited allegations against Father Maciel would come as a surprise were it not for the fact that the U.S. is currently experiencing a resurgence of anti-Catholicism. One would have thought that Father Neuhaus's meticulous analysis of the evidence in First Things had put the matter to rest once and for all. As one who sat near Father Maciel for several weeks during the Synod for America, I simply cannot reconcile those old stories with the man's radiant holiness.”
Neuhaus went so far as to attack the journalists who first broke the story as being bigots:
It is not the kind of stuff you would find in any mainstream media, but then Berry and Renner are not practitioners of what is ordinarily meant by responsible journalism. Berry's business is Catholic scandal and sensationalism. That is what he does. Renner's tour at the Courant was marked by an animus against things Catholic, an animus by no means limited to the Legion…
I can only say why, after a scrupulous examination of the claims and counterclaims, I have arrived at moral certainty that the charges are false and malicious. I cannot know with cognitive certainty what did or did not happen forty, fifty, or sixty years ago. No means are available to reach legal certainty (beyond a reasonable doubt). Moral certainty, on the other hand, is achieved by considering the evidence in light of the Eighth Commandment, 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.' On that basis, I believe the charges against Fr. Maciel and the Legion are false and malicious and should be given no credence whatsoever.
I am unaware of any public accountability for these intellectuals' defense of a figure whose crimes were so great and so clear and so vile that he rightly qualifies as a monstrous hypocrite, child-rapist and cultist. If I had vouched for this man's innocence, I would feel a public responsibility to apologize and explain. If I have missed such a statement from any of the above (Neuhaus, of course, is no longer with us and unable to explain) I'd be grateful if someone forwarded them to me. I have searched Google in vain.
For a brilliant documentary on this pedophile cult protected by John Paul II and Benedict XVI check this out.
The Swedish Bed finds a fascinating photo series:
People create an avatar that represents who they want to be. Photojournalist Robbie Cooper finds out the stories behind these avatars. He spent three years, travelling to places like Korea, China, France and Germany to photograph people who created an avatar.
Another Dish fave after the jump:
That's how much Rupert Murdoch is planning to ask online readers to pay to read the Times and the Sunday Times of London. Ian Grayson thinks it's genius. Jeff Jarvis less so:
Murdoch will milk his cash cow a pound at a time, leaving his children with a dry, dead beast, the remains of his once proud if not great newspaper empire. I used to work for Murdoch at his American magazine TV Guide. I respected his balls. It is a pity to see them gone.
Meanwhile, the WSJ announces $18 a month to read it on an iPad. Michael Wolff, as usual, puts the boot in:
You’ll get the online side for free if you merely subscribe to the paper product. Online is an add-on, in other words, a form of subscription promotion—a reader service.
You encourage present subscribers, more and more tempted by online access and efficiency, to renew. You bring back a small portion of those who, in the recent years of online transformation, have deserted you.
And you give the finger to those people who you’ll never make a buck on (including that ever-growing international audience who UK advertisers aren’t interested in). Anyway, the point is to discourage online readership and, if you really want the Times, turn you back to the paper product.
This all makes sense in a through-the-looking-glass sort of way. Or, it makes sense if you see your business as finite. That is, to maximize profits in the short term.
It is not an entirely unstrategic plan if you are 79.
A reader writes:
I fear the problem in the Church is the problem you see on the right: The organization has been whittled down to a few diehards who believe they are absolutely right and see any failings of their group not as a leadership problem, or a moral problem, but a media problem.
I remember attending a mass in Montreal in 2002, just as the sex abuse scandals in the United States were surfacing. The priest dedicated his entire sermon to condemning journalists for supposedly persecuting the Church and instructed his parishioners to not listen to anything they heard about the abuse.
That set the stage for the next several years before I gave up on the Church: When the hierarchy addressed the abuse, it refused to reflect on its culpability, instead casting the Church as victim of a vast conspiracy trying to drag Catholicism down. And because many of us who were outraged at what happened left the Church, the remaining parishioners — not all, but I'd say a bare majority — believe that narrative and are more furious at the evil, evil MSM who uncovered the abuse than the leaders who enabled it.
I have more good memories of the Catholic Church than bad, and I want to see the current hierarchy swept away and real reforms put in place. But, like the conservative movement in this country, the rank-and-file seems distressingly willing to accept and embrace the lies floated by its leaders. Until that changes, I don't see how the Church reforms.
Obama's handiwork. Fallows analyzes here.
This weekend on the Dish, the pontiff fired back, a priest had enough with the pope's defenders, Dreher suggested a path for the pope to take, a Dreher reader told perpetrators to turn themselves in, Hitch sat down with Maher about the Church, and Andrew knocked down the idea of the confessional as cover.
The Dish also set the record straight on Petraeus' words about Israel and took one last look at the Frum-AEI row. Andrew went after Dennis Ross' defense of Netanyahu while Hasselbeck voiced disgust over Palin and far-right rhetoric like this.
In other random coverage, the Atlantic and PBS investigated the suicide tourism of Switzerland, Newsweek examined gender disparities in the newsroom, Elizabeth Nolan Brown defended foodies on food stamps, Chris Buckley recalled the quirkiness of his father, and readers reacted to the First Lady's blasphemy. Cool virals here, here, and here.
— C.B.
The Dish 
