This is point two of three found over at NewsBusters. While the other points are important, this is one I have been confronted with quite a bit in the past that I wish to post here in order to add to the readers and mine learning curve and accessibility: It is in regards to a Maureen Down article in the New York Times:
Dowd also repeated the oft-heard anti-Catholic lie that Pope Pius XII, the World War II-era pontiff, “remained silent about the Holocaust as it happened.”
This grossly false tale has been roundly debunked repeatedly:
In a December 25, 1941, editorial, the New York Times wrote, “The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas… he is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all… the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism … he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace.”
An August 6, 1942, headline in the New York Times read, “Pope is Said to Plead for Jews Listed for Removal from France.”
In his book, Three Popes and the Jews, Israeli diplomat and scholar Pinchas Lapide has asserted, “The Catholic Church under the pontificate of Pius XII was instrumental in saving lives of as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands.” Lapide adds that this “figure far exceeds those saved by all other Churches and rescue organizations combined.”
Michael Tagliacozzo, “the foremost survivor on the October 1943 Nazi roundup of Rome’s Jews” and “a survivor of the raid himself,” said Pius’ actions helped rescue 80 percent of Rome’s Jews. Said Tagliacozzo, “Pope Pacelli was the only one who intervened to impede the deportation of Jews on October 16, 1943, and he did very much to hide and save thousands of us.” (Rabbi David G. Dalin, p. 83)
In the June 21, 2009, edition of the Boston Globe, Mordechay Lewy, Israel’s ambassador to the Holy See, is quoted, “It is wrong to look for any affinity between [Pius] and the Nazis. It is also wrong to say that he didn’t save Jews. Everybody who knows the history of those who were saved among Roman Jewry knows that they hid in the church.”
So much for Dowd’s claim of Pope Pius XII “remaining silent.” There have been scores of books, research papers, and articles (list 1, 2) that outline what Pope Pius XII really did during World War II.
Camera.org, a highly recommended site for bias against Israel in the media, reports on the retraction of the Goldstone Reportthat needs to be inculcated into the psyche of bloggers in preparation to answer the liberals who still cite this report which most rejected when it came out (save the liberal U.N. backers and anti-Semites around the world). As Camera comments on this about-face:
In examining the New York Times’ record on the Goldstone report, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that the newspaper is more interested in promoting as credible an investigation that even its leader has repudiated than in objectively reporting on its shortcomings. Unfortunately, this is unsurprising coming from a media outlet that is increasingly moving from objective news reporting to advocacy journalism.
That accusation was contained in a report to the United Nations by Richard Goldstone, an eminent South African judge who had been used by the international community previously to investigate war crimes. That Goldstone was also a Jew and a Zionist made the charge all the more powerful.
Now, though, Goldstone has retracted his findings. He no longer believes that Israel intentionally targeted civilians during the Gaza war (although he still believes Hamas did) and says that any deaths were inadvertent — the usual fog of war, the usual panicked decision. For Israel, it’s like the governor has called the warden — it’s been reprieved and taken off death row.
Once again, rockets are being fired into southern Israel from Gaza, some of them going up the coast as far as Ashkelon, a major city and port. Before the last war, from April 2001 to the end of 2008, 4,246 rockets and 4,180 mortar rounds were fired into Israel, killing 14 Israelis and wounding more than 400. The rockets have since been improved. Should more than the occasional rocket actually make it all the way to Ashkelon (one came close Monday) or should one of them come down on a school, another war with Hamas would start a moment or two later. Israel has already hit back, but not in force. In addition, a West Bank settler family of five was recently murdered in their home by what are universally thought to be Palestinians. This, too, has put Israel on edge.
On my recent lecture tour in South Africa the subject of Judge Richard Goldstone came up quite a lot. Whether it was the dinner in Johannesburg at the home of Chabad head Rabbi David Masinter where acquaintances of the judge were in attendance, or at Sea Point Synagogue, South Africa’s largest, where I lectured and whose Rabbi, Dovid Weinberg, had officiated at Goldstone’s grandson’s Bar Mitzvah in Johannesburg, or my speech for Chabad of Cape Town and later in Pretoria, the man whom the media describes as a ‘respected international jurist’ and who had falsely accused Israel of war crimes was never far from anyone’s lips.
South Africans are among the world’s proudest Jews and most ardent Zionists. So it was understandable that they would detest Goldstone, viewing him as a traitor to his people, a man who engaged in a blood libel against the Jewish state in order to enhance his standing at the United Nations.
I have personally never agreed with this assessment of Goldstone, seeing him instead as one of Lenin’s ‘useful idiots,’ a man so full of his own pomposity and self-righteousness as to be utterly blind to simple notions of right and wrong. Like Jimmy Carter before him, Goldstone is one of those well-meaning ignoramuses whose view of morality is that whichever is the party without tanks and an air force must be the party who is just. This knee-jerk reaction to always champion the underdog, notwithstanding their evil actions explains the shockingly obvious statement in Goldstone’s recent Washington Postapology to Israel in which he wrote, “In the end, asking Hamas to investigate [its own crimes] may have been a mistaken enterprise.” It took a famous judge three years to come to the conclusion that asking a terrorist organization hell-bent on exterminating Israel to impartially report its own atrocities was not his brightest idea.
Much more troubling, however, are the comments attributed to Samantha Power, the rising star of the Obama Administration who is being discussed as a replacement for Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. I am a huge fan of Power’s 2002 book A Problem from Hell, detailing how America refused to intervene to stop repeated genocides in the twentieth century. I have repeatedly extolled the Pulitzer-prize winning book in lectures and columns and believe it should be required reading by every American High School student. I was also not surprised to read that it was Power who was instrumental in persuading an always reluctant President Obama to intervene in Libya to stop Gaddafi from slaughtering his people. It was therefore with considerable sadness that I learned of Power’s troubling statements on Israel, comments that require her immediate clarification lest she compromise her own moral credibility. American Thinker and other publications have reported that Power said that the United States should send in a massive military force to protect the Palestinians from Israel. And that she maligned the American pro-Israel lobby with her advocacy of “alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import [the pro-Israel lobby] and… sacrificing…billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the state of Palestine.” Is Power really arguing for greatly reducing or eliminating American military aid to Israel and channeling it instead to the Palestinians who have repeatedly used foreign aid to foster hatred of Jews in schools, line the pockets of corrupt officials, and promote terrorism?
There is more, with Power seemingly criticizing the New York Times in 2003 for being insufficiently critical of Israel after it attacked terrorist-saturated Jenin. Of Israel’s presence in Lebanon, Power wrote in her book, Chasing the Flame, that what sparked Israel’s invasion of Lebanon was “dispossessed Palestinians and Israeli insecurity,” where in truth Israel invaded Lebanon to stop the incessant stream of rocket attacks that terrorized its northern cities. The phrase ‘Israeli insecurity’ implies that Israel is paranoid rather than reflecting the reality of a Lebanon dominated by Hezbollah, whose genocidal aim is the destruction of Israel.
One should take note that while the New York Times is about as bad as they get, it is not taxpayer funded like NPR (National Public Radio)! Here is an example of the bias found at NPR on this matter, followed by a video of the European Union voting on March 10th of 2010, adopting the Goldstone Report:
18,321 words in pro-Arab only segments;
4,934 words in pro-Israel segments.
Bias in number of Arab-only vs Israeli-only segments:
63-percent Palestinian/pro-Arab only segments;
37-percent Israel/pro-Israel segments.
You may contact this European Parliment member, Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, via email to enquirer why she supported such bad reporting and took the positions she did in the above video – “knowing now what we did then [at least reasonable people].” – email@example.com
This is a great story from NewsBusters. It shows how Nobel Prize winner can lie to his readers, forgetting any semblance of real journalism. You know, I think journalism needs a good dose of what hermeneutics teachers. In fact, may I say this generation of graduates have been taught how not to think.
Michele Bachmann was given the Krugman treatment in a column on Monday. Krugman had this to say:
And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.
Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
Krugman defined “eliminationist rhetoric” in this context as “suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.” Bachmann’s statement was the only example he provided.
But true to form, Krugman quoted Bachmann out of context, and completely turned around the meaning of her statement in the process. What did she actually say? Here’s PowerLine’s John Hinderaker:
As it happens, I–unlike Krugman–know all about Michele’s “armed and dangerous” quote, because she said it in an interview with Brian Ward and me, on our radio show. It was on March 21, 2009. The subject was the Obama administration’s cap and trade proposal. Michele organized a couple of informational meetings in her district with an expert on global warming and cap and trade, and she came on our show to promote those meetings. She wanted her constituents to be armed with information on cap and trade so that they would understand how unnecessary, and how damaging to our economy, the Obama administration’s proposal was. That would make them dangerous to the administration’s left-wing plans…
For the record, here is what Michele said: “I’m going to have materials for people when they leave. I want people armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax, because we need to fight back.” Yes, that’s right: she wanted Minnesotans to be armed with “materials”–facts and arguments–not guns. If this is the best example of “eliminationist rhetoric” that the far left can come up with, you can see how absurdly weak the claims of Krugman and his fellow haters are.
Bachmann wanted her constituents to be engaged and knowledgable in the political process. This, apparently, was the only example Krugman could come up with, and it doesn’t actually support his point.
I think seminary grads have a LOT to offer these political “mavens” (really, red herrings). For instance, what does the typical Bible student learn about how to interpret properly. Here is some of a larger paper I wrote a while ago entitled, “Biblical Inerrancy Defined,” on this topic:
The internal test utilizes one Aristotle’s dictums from his Poetics. He said,
They [the critics] start with some improbable presumption; and having so decreed it themselves, proceed to draw inferences, and censure the poet as though he had actually said whatever they happen to believe, if his statement conflicts with their notion of things…. Whenever a word seems to imply some contradiction, it is necessary to reflect how many ways there may be of understanding it in the passage in question…. So it is probably the mistake of the critics that has given rise to the Problem…. See whether he [the author] means the same thing, in the same relation, and in the same sense, before admitting that he has contradicted something he has said himself or what a man of sound sense assumes as true.
…Consider how confused a foreigner must be when he reads in a daily newspaper: “The prospectors made a strike yesterday up in the mountains.” “The union went on strike this morning.” “The batter made his third strike and was called out by the umpire.” “Strike up with the Star Spangled Banner.” “The fisherman got a good strike in the middle of the lake.” Presumably each of these completely different uses of the same word go back to the parent and have the same etymology. But complete confusion may result from misunderstanding how the speaker meant the word to be used…. We must engage in careful exegesis in order to find out what he meant in light of contemporary conditions and usage.
Eight Rules of Interpretation ~ …the Eight Rules of Interpretation used by legal experts for more than 2500 years.
1) Rule of Definition: Define the term or words being considered and then adhere to the defined meanings.
2) Rule of Usage: Don’t add meaning to established words and terms. What was the common usage in the cultural and time period. When the passage was written?
3) Rule of Context: Avoid using words out of context. Context must define terms and how words are used.
4) Rule of Historical background: Don’t separate interpretation and historical investigation.
5) Rule of Logic: Be certain that words as interpreted agree with the overall premise.
6) Rule of Precedent: Use the known and commonly accepted meanings of words, not obscure meanings for which there is no precedent.
7) Rule of Unity: Even though many documents may be used there must be a general unity among them.
8) Rule of Inference: Base conclusions on what is already known and proven or can be reasonably implied from all known facts.
 Etymology: “the study of the origins of words or parts of words and how they have arrived at their current form and meaning” (Encarta Dictionary).
Paul Krugman could use a fat dose of what journalism SHOULD BE, maybe by going to a seminary.
Lost in all of the attention paid to the heavy spending by Republican-oriented independent groups in this year’s midterm elections is that Democratic candidates have generally wielded a significant head-to-head financial advantage over their Republican opponents in individual competitive races.
Even with a recent surge in fund-raising for Republican candidates, Democratic candidates have outraised their opponents over all by more than 30 percent in the 109 House races The New York Times has identified as in play. And Democratic candidates have significantly outspent their Republican counterparts over the last few months in those contests, $119 million to $79 million….
NewsBusters has a great post about percentages, and it shows that 67% of New Yorkers would prefer the Mega-Mosque (Ground Zero Mosque) built a bit further away. Maybe to a place where body parts and plane [art were not found on and in from the first plane hitting the first Tower? Just maybe? Noel Sheppard rightly pooints out this “subject” “object” distinction that New Yorkers and 72% of the nation can get, but the general media cannot: “Most people outside the liberal press are intelligent enough to understand that developers have the right to build this mosque if its zoning is approved. They just question the wisdom of doing so. If an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers can understand the difference between having the right to do something and whether or not it would be appropriate, why can’t media members?” Indeed, why can’t they. Maybe because a majority of them are very progressive in their views, no thanks to institutions like Columbia University. Here is the poll:
Over all, 50 percent of those surveyed oppose building the project two blocks north of the World Trade Center site, even though a majority believe that the developers have the right to do so. Thirty-five percent favor it.
The poll, however, reveals a more complicated portrait of the opposition in New York: 67 percent said that while Muslims had a right to construct the center near ground zero, they should find a different site.
Most strikingly, 38 percent of those who expressed support for the plan to build it in Lower Manhattan said later in a follow-up question that they would prefer it be moved farther away, suggesting that even those who defend the plan question the wisdom of the location.