Gosnell Tragedy Finally Getting Attention (Sort of)

Kermit the Killer Gosnell routinely killed live, viable, fully delivered babies at his Philadelphia abortion clinic. He now stands accused of 1st degree murder relating to seven of those infants. The story was completely ignored by the mainstream media. A picture of the completely empty media chairs in the courtroom is an indictment of every news agency that seeks to bury an inconvenient story.

Finally in the wake of an excellent article by Kathleen Powers in USA today and a concentrated twitter campaign that has #Gosnell as the most tweeted term of the day, it's starting to get a little attention. There were 225 articles on a Google search this evening, it included articles the National Post, the Washington Post, LA times, CBS News, and Fox, but  it was nowhere on the home page of Google News. You still have to look for it. Still the campaign is having some impact, Pro-choice journalist Megan Mc Ardle wrote an honest article, "Why I didn't write about Gosnell and Why I Should Have" and Real Clear Politics listed 3 stories in its afternoon report.

This is a brutal disgusting story, that must be told. It's a tragedy, but I'm optimistic that in the coming days people will learn about the horrors that unrestricted abortion access has on women and children. I'm hopeful that it will start discussions about how we can protect women and children and highlight how unreliable many of our news sources have become.

We're All Bullies

Thousands of teachers and students across the country donned pink t-shirts to take a stand against bullying today. No one likes a bully. Too bad we're all bullies.

A couple of years ago I volunteered to help with a self esteem workshop for young children. We led a small group of kids through a morning session and there was a 10 year old boy at my table who was very outspoken about how he was bullied at school. Naturally, I was sympathetic to the young guy and he hung out with me through various activities the whole morning. Part way through a new boy from his class joined our group. The first boy said, "You can't sit here fatso." I politely said that the new boy was welcome to join us and we moved on. Soon we had an activity sorting candy, again the first boy says, "this won't work. Fatty is going to eat them all!" Finally I pointed out to the first boy that he was being the bully, but he just couldn't comprehend that he could be a bully too.

I thought of this a few months back when some radio announcers convinced a nurse caring for Kate Middleton that they were part of the Royal Family she shared way to much information and the prank went viral. The nurse committed suicide shortly after the prank presumably because of her shame at the incident. The radio jockies lost their jobs and had to go into hiding because of all the threats that they received after the incident. Nobody looked good in this situation the radio hosts and hundreds like them make a living tormenting and ridiculing vulnerable and trusting people and they are enabled by their audiences. After the news of the nurses death, the pile on of criticism and the threats the djs received were their own form of bullying.

In fact the pink shirted crusaders are likely shaming non conforming students that are uncomfortable wearing pink - they are inadvertinely bullying the students in the name of anti-bullying. It's typical, some of the worst bullies are those who seek conformity in the name of diversity, in fact the National Review Online has an excellent interview about a new book, Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America.

Let's stop bullying for good. Maybe the first step is to have the courage to wear blue next pink day.

Pope Francis Emotion and Evangelism

I was absolutely exhuberant when I first learnt that we had a Pope. It was a different feeling than when Pope Benedict was chosen. I had grieved John Paul the Great, but Benedict's resignation took that part of the process away. This time the circumstances were sad but not heart breaking. This time I could focus on the joy of God reinforcing that He is taking care of His Church.

We have a rare opportunity to evangelize with Pope Francis. First its the simple fact that everyone outlet has been talking about him. Second his humilty and focus on the poor will stand in sharp contrast to our materialist culture and our selfish desires. Finally the way he is already being attacked by enemies of Christianity will help draw all Christians together.

On Thursday night we ordered a Pizza, as we were waiting my best friend struck up a conversation with a guy playing with his smart phone. The conversation went something like this:

Best Friend Forever: "We Have a Pope!"
Smart Phone Guy: "I've Heard a Rumour"
Random 50 year old guy: "He'll have a hard time fill John Paul's shoes"
SPG "Yeah"
R50 "He took us forward. The last pope took us back. Did you know he said that not recycling is a venial sin?"
BFF "Yeah but you only need to confess the mortal ones"
R50 "Still John Paul was the greatest pope ever. People think Reagan won the Cold War but it was really John Paul"
SPG "I'll agree that he was the greatest pope of the modern era, but I've been doing some reading a lot of the popes have done some pretty amazing things . . ."
Pizza Kid "Can I help you?"
Me "I'm here to pick up a gluten free, non dairy pizza with anchovies"
PK "Here, that'll be $12"
BFF "We have a Pope!"
PK "Huh?"

As we left R50 and Smart Phone guy were still in a deep conversation. Maybe we'll see them at Mass today . . .

On the second point Ashley McGuire wrote an excellent post about how Pope Francis will likely smash the over simplified left/right labels proving that you can uphold Catholic Moral teaching AND love the the poor and marginalized:

Pope Francis, meet a generation of young Catholics longing for you. Longing for someone to show us in the most tangible of ways that the Catholic Church defends the most vulnerable among us, be they in their mother’s womb or hungry in the streets.

Meet a generation of Protestants looking to see Catholics assure them that our faith is first and foremost about Jesus Christ.

She's right that this witness will speak volumes to the largely unchurched culture that we live in.
The silliness of the mainstream media - working to dig up dirt on day 1 of Francis' papacy -will also help unify all Christians. Even before the cardinals made their decsision. The evangelical magazine Christianity Today noted:

Whether we Protestants like to admit it or not, though, there is a single person in Rome who can influence Christians of every stripe to work more heartily in the cause of Christ, sometimes together (even with Catholics) and sometimes faithfully in their own theological tradition. That's why even non-Catholics are praying fervently for the new pope. Given the monumental challenges of the 21st century, it is more important than ever that Protestants and Catholics figure out how to work together.

The humility of Pope Francis should provide just such an opportunity.

Whither the National Post?

With all the press coverage of the downfall of Rupert Murdoch, the single worst piece of analysis was published in the National Post. I'll admit that the title, "It Couldn't Happen to a Sleazier Guy" drew me in. Good gossip on a man who made a fortune selling bad gossip was something I was looking forward to. But Jeet Heer's article was an astonishing disappointment. Essentially his thesis is Murdoch's news holdings tend to be right wing, therefore he's a scumbag:

Although he dabbled with left-wing politics when young, the mature Murdoch has had a remarkably consistent political profile, one that informs his vast array of media holdings ranging from the Sunday Times of England to The Australian to the Wall Street Journal and Fox News in the United States. With the exception of Murdoch’s Chinese holdings, which tend to defer to the wishes of the Communist Party, all of Murdoch’s media outlets are organs of right-wing populism.

For shame! How dare he give voice to right wing ideas? No smear job would be complete without accusations of racism:

The characteristic stance of a Murdoch newspaper is that of defending putatively
“normal” tax-payers against various supposed parasites and weirdos, an eclectic and elastic category that includes union members, gays, almost all foreigners, uppity women, and racial minorities.

But worse! The Sun has a long-standing habit of referring to the French as “frogs,” . . . How offensive. Seriously, even when the facts don't fit the smear - Murdoch's wife is of Asian descent so the racism charge doesn't quite stick - Heer just uses it for more 'evidence.'

Murdoch is something fouler: an intelligent man who has found a way to make money trafficking in racial animosities he himself doesn’t necessarily share.

The entire article was a hit piece based merely on the fact that the author didn't like the fact that Murdoch wasn't true to left wing orthodoxy. I can't believe the National Post would print such garbage.

Don't get me wrong, I don't know enough about Murdoch to have an opinion. I do know the cell phone hacking and corruption of his flagship tabloid was shameful and someone, probably several people, should go to jail. But that doesn't mean that every paper or news outlet in Rupert Murdoch's control should be tarred with the same brush.

Eddie Long Coverage Reveals Double Standard

Televangelist Eddie Long is vowing to fight allegations that he used his wealth and position of power to coerce young men into sexual relationships. Long is 57 years old, married, and head of a 26,000 member Baptist mega-church in Georgia.

So far, that seems to be the theme of the coverage. A focus on his flash and charisma more than the pain that his victims that have (allegedly) suffered. One article even used the tragedy to rave about his fashion sense and chiseled abs:

I'm just a fashion editor. And while we may not be the first to spot a good liar, we sure can spot good style. And no one, but no one, makes a stronger style statement than Bishop Eddie Long. The leader of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, an Atlanta-area mega-church with over 25,000 members, has a penchant for bad toupee's and good clothes. Really, really good clothes. He's also - allegedly - got a penchant for young men. At least that's what his accusers, all four of them (and counting) are saying. . .

If his wardrobe in the pulpit is predictable, his sartorial choices outside of it aren't. In the few photos of a more casual Long that litter the Internet, it is very apparent that he is an exercise buff. A news clip of him in a tracksuit hint that he might have a workout wardrobe as collated -- and curated -- as his preaching one.

That hint was proven true when suggestive, self-portraits of a remarkably buff Bishop surfaced. They showed Long, primping and preening in flimsy muscle shirts that hugged every ripple in the fifty-seven year-old's startlingly chiseled physique.

What this man is accused of doing is a disgrace and a tragedy. Unfortunately, the event has generated a sea of spin and gossip mongering.

I suppose that's all we can expect since prominent evangelical pastors crash and burn regularly. Ron Hart notes sarcastically, "By now we know how the redemptive process works for a televangelist accused of sexual relations with young males." So the story needs a new angle weather its race or fashion sense.

A few things about the story strike me:

First there just doesn't seem to be the same kind of anger directed toward this guy as toward the Catholic Church when allegations of abuse surface.

Second, in most accounts, including the article above, he is referred to as "Bishop Eddie Long," despite the fact that Baptists do not have a hierarchy. Strictly speaking a 'Baptist Bishop' is a misnomer. Including the title of Bishop in the story seems to be just another way to somehow transfer the tarnish of this man's sin onto the Catholic Church by association.

Most importantly, the fact that he is married apparently did nothing to stop his aggression or sexual appetite. This is very reminiscent of the charges brought against prominent evangelical Ted Haggard. Haggard was also married and sought homosexual relationships.

Whenever news of a scandal happens in the Catholic Church it is used as an argument against the vows of chastity that men and women consecrated to holy orders take. But stories like this make it clear that allowing priests to marry would not end abuse. Something else must be done. Fortunately, especially since the scandals in 2002, the Church has placed an emphasis on screening unfit candidates before they enter the priesthood, on proper formation of the men in seminary and on supporting priest's spiritual needs in order to prevent tragedies like this.

Toronto Star Covers March For Life

Tonight's headline story on the Toronto Star online is the March for Life. I never expected to see the day when this event would get such positive coverage in Canada's left wing newspaper. I suspect the purpose of the coverage is to try to help promote the Liberal 'smear' that Harper is pro-life. Still this particular article is fair and will undoubtedly encourage more pro life Canadians to stand up and be counted. Protecting unborn children at at least some point in their gestation is a mainstream opinion. Today and tomorrow Canadians will know that there were 15,000 people who were willing to stand up and be counted by travelling to Ottawa and standing up for life. I salute every one of them.

In the meantime here are some highlights from the story in the Star:

Around 15,000 pro-life campaigners, clearly buoyed by what they see as last month’s victory on the foreign-aid front, cheered loudly when numerous speakers talked about the next steps in what one called bringing a “culture of life” to Canada.

“We would like some more courage to do something more in Canada in defence of the unborn,” Cardinal Marc Ouellette, of Quebec City, told the crowd. Ouellette minced no words in explaining later what he would like Harper to do next: “Reopen the discussion in Canada about this judicial void; there is absolutely no protection for the unborn,” Ouellette told reporters.

“The next step should be a reopening of discussion about the legal situation of abortion in Canada.”

Pro life Conservative backbencher Rod Bruinooge helped keep the event in perspective:

Bruinooge says he accepts Harper’s long-stated refusal to open up any debate over abortion legislation in Canada. Thursday’s rally was purely for information purposes, he said.

“The goal of the pro-life movement in general is to acknowledge that the unborn have value, that they’re human and we as a society need to consider their value. And I think that’s a message that’s beginning to come out,” Bruinooge said.

He would not comment, however, on whether the movement has gained strength because the increasing clout of the Christian right in Canada, as asserted in a newly released book, Armageddon, by Canadian journalist Marci MacDonald.

“In our country there’s a number of faith groups … there’s Sikhs, Hindus that have many similar philosophical viewpoints to Christians, and I think that many people, from various theological communities, suggest various ideas that I think are important to public policy,” Bruinooge said. “On the life issues, I know that not only are Christians generally supportive of pro-life politics, but I know Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists are as well.”

At the rally, Bruinooge particularly singled out the two Sikh MPs who turned out on stage: Liberal MP Gurbax Malhi and Conservative MP Tim Uppal.

Again, congrats to everyone involved.

Maclean's Article Fair and Balanced

I just had this article pointed out to me. In December, Michael Friscolanti wrote a very fair and balanced article about the issue of abuse in the Catholic Church. It's graphic, and disturbing and it's very critical of the hypocrisy and betrayal of bishop Leahy and others in the church that have sought to cover up past scandals. I don't necessarily recommend reading the article it's long and, as I said, graphic but there were some very encouraging points that bear repeating:

But at the risk of downplaying decades of unspeakable abuse—or forgiving a Church hierarchy that moved heaven and earth to suppress scandal and protect criminal clergy—an obvious point is often ignored: the vast, vast majority of Catholic priests are not sexual predators. In fact, the scientific research suggests that men who target children are no more pervasive in the priesthood (and perhaps less pervasive) than in any other segment of society. Depending on the study, somewhere between two and four per cent of priests have had sexual contact with a minor. Or, to put it another way, between 96 and 98 per cent have not.

“It’s part of that myth—the myth of the pedophile priest who can’t help himself,” says Thomas Plante, a psychology professor at Santa Clara University who has published dozens of studies about sexually abusive priests. “It’s really an issue of perception rather than reality. Believe it or not, probably the safest place for a kid to be is in a Catholic church environment.” . . .

In 1993, experts analyzed the files of 1,322 priests who were hospitalized over a 25-year period at Southdown Institute, an Ontario facility that treats clergy suffering from a wide range of psychological disorders. Fewer than three per cent were pedophiles. Around the same time, the archdiocese of Chicago examined its own records over the previous 40 years—spanning more than 2,200 priests—and reopened every internal complaint. The result: fewer than two per cent sexually abused a child. A New York Times analysis conducted a decade later found the same rate across the United States: 1.8 per cent. . .

So why do four per cent of priests abuse children? . . . One theory does stand out: the vow of celibacy. . .

Ask the average Catholic, and they know the solution: let priests get married. But that assumption, Plante says, is as much of a myth as the pedophile priest. “People will say: ‘Oh, if they weren’t celibate, the problem goes away.’ We know that’s not true. Sexual abuse is not an uncommon thing out there, whether you’re married or not, whether you’re a priest or not. It’s common.”

Plante's point is undeniable, but it's still very refreshing to see it included in a mainstream media article.

The Globe is Right About Families

I was pleasantly surprised to read the headline editorial, "No Replacing Traditional Families," from the Globe and Mail today:

Not all families are equal for the raising of children. Not every form of diversity deserves celebration. Canada's 2006 census, released yesterday, shows that marriage is in decline, and common-law unions and single parenthood continue to grow. And that is not good for kids. Marriage is still the best framework in which to raise healthy, happy children.

To applaud diversity for diversity's sake is to evade responsibility for the effects of that diversity on children. Common-law unions are more likely to break down than marriages, and the children of single-parent families tend to face disadvantages. "Children growing up in single-parent families are more likely to repeat grades, and to be less healthe than children living in two-parent families," says a Canadian government report on the well-being of the country's children, citing the huge database known as the National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth. "These children are also less likely to get along well with friends and parents than children living in two-parent families." Problems of hyperactivity, aggression or conduct disorders and other behaviour problems are also higher in single-parent families, the report says. These findings hold true regardless of the income of the single parents.

The editorial board is absolutely right! Could it be a sign of rational thought in the Main Stream Media? I hope so. It's about time that we stop making 'diversity' the primary definition of what it means to be Canadian. It's also time to stop the war against 'the traditional family.' Our society depends on healthy families to create healthly children and healthy citizens. It's time to start supporting them.

Conrad Will Walk

According to Black's lawyers, the Conrad Black trial will end tomorrow. With the jury deadlocked, it seems increasingly likely that Conrad Black will be a free man. This would be a very good thing for the rule of law and the validity of contracts. It's been disgusting how the prosecution relied on a completely dishonest schmuck like David Radler or others who were bought with plea bargains or other side deals with the prosecution. It simply doesn't appear that prosecutors would have had any case whatsoever without their side deals with witnesses. Essentially if Conrad is found guilty traditional burden of proof justice will be replaced by Survivor justice where the defendant is simply voted off the island by ex company employees or directors whose sole motivation is protecting themselves.

Before you mistake this for an informed opinion you should know that I'm certainly not getting 'fair and balanced' coverage. I've been following Mark Steyn's coverage of the trial on Maclean's, but given Mr. Black's one time dominance of the world newspaper industry I doubt there's a single 'unbiased' reporter covering the case.

National Post's Honest Discussion on Abortion

There's a very encouraging article about the abortion debate in this Saturday's National Post. It's a feature article in the mainstream media that directly debunks the myth that there is any consensus in favour of abortion on demand. This excerpt shows that in reality only a third of Canadians support having no legal restrictions to abortion:

"Abortion is not on the agenda in Canada for the mainstream in Canada and has
not been for a very long time," said Darrell Bricker, president and chief operating officer of public affairs for Ipsos-Reid. But he says this sense that the majority do not want to reopen the issue is often incorrectly taken to mean that there is consensus on the issue in Canada.

"Is there consensus? No, the opinions are all over the map. And you'd be wrong to see this as a consensus in favour of abortion under any circumstances."

His organization has not done any specific polling on abortion since 2000. The issue has been raised in other surveys, such as the one in February, 2006, shortly before Stephen Harper became Prime Minister, to assess what issues might bring down the minority government.

In that survey, 50% of Canadians said they would not support bringing down the government if they tried to pass a law that limits a woman's access to abortion; but 45% said they would be in favour of bringing down the government on such an issue.

The polling done in 1988 and 2000 compares attitudes about when abortion should be permitted: only when a woman's life is in danger, only in certain circumstances, or whenever a woman wants one. It showed slight increases in support for abortion on demand (from 36% in 1988 to 41% in 2000) and for abortion in certain circumstances (39% to 41%) and a slight decrease in the percentage who support abortion only in the most extreme, life-saving circumstances (23% in 1988 and 17% in 2000.)

When Environics surveyed Canadians about their attitudes toward abortion last fall, they found that about a third each of Canadians supported the view on one end of the spectrum that human life should be legally protected from conception on and, on the other end, that it should be protected only from birth on. Another third think it should be protected prior to birth, but some months after conception.

According to the survey, conducted for the anti-abortion group LifeSite, 31% said protection should begin from conception on, 23% said after three months of pregnancy, and 10% said after six months of pregnancy; another 30% think human life should receive legal protection only from the point of birth.

What is most compelling about all of these numbers, and most surprising considering the way the abortion issue is typically framed in Canada, is that they are not at all conclusive. As Mr. Bricker says, "it's not like 100% are in favour of abortion on demand ? There are a lot of lines being drawn on this issue."

Hat's off to the National Post for having the courage to feature an honest discussion of what Canadians actually believe on a subject that's usually considered taboo in Canada!

CSIS Better Have a File on This Guy

Amir Attaran, has triggered an investigation into how Canadian soldiers have treated Afghan detainees. The Globe and Mail reported:

At least one, and perhaps three, Afghan detainees "taken captive by the Canadian Forces appears to have been beaten while detained and interrogated by them," alleges Amir Attaran, a University of Ottawa law professor, in a letter sent to the commission.

The allegations are based on documents obtained by Mr. Attaran under the Access to Information Act outlining injuries in the cases.

Presumably Mr Attaran was on a fishing expedition requesting all available records from our military. Through all of this he found one detainee who was a suspected bomb maker and continually resisted Canadian Forces ended up with some cuts and bruises, likely of his own making. The Canadian Forces stated:

When transferred to Military Police stationed at Kandahar Airfield, the detainee continued to display extreme agitation as well as belligerent and totally unco-operative behaviour. Already restrained by nylon straps to his wrists while being guided by Military Police, the detainee used his legs to leverage himself off the back of a vehicle in an effort to generate resistance against the Military Police escorting him. In accordance with proper use of force procedures, Military Police used appropriate physical control techniques to restrain him from doing that.

It appears this is an open and shut case; the military have acted responsibly. The big question is what kind of Canadian would have an interest in systematically looking for evidence to discredit our forces? I think it's the responsibility of CSIS to find out. The second question is why is our major media so anxious to discredit our forces by painting responsible behaviour as scandalous?