December 11, 2013

"Pope Francis, The People’s Pope" is Time's Person of the Year.

"He took the name of a humble saint and then called for a church of healing. The first non-European pope in 1,200 years is poised to transform a place that measures change by the century."

Here's the post where I analyzed Time's 10 finalist and concluded that the person would be Edith Windsor. My runner-up was Edward Snowden.

But my rejection of the Pope had an "unless" clause: "Popes have won, but I think it's a bit early to go with another Pope yet, unless the Time folk are itching to play Obama's recently attempted income inequality theme. I think that would be shabby, so I say no."

A number of commenters here thought the Pope would win, and I want to single out Pat:
I think it goes to the Pope and not because he's said some "leftist" things. In a very short term, he has sparked new life into a very large religion. I am a crotchety grumpy conservative, and I love everything about the guy.
I haven't read the whole article yet and probably never will. Here's a key passage that connects to American political themes:
[B]ehind his self-effacing facade, he is a very canny operator. He makes masterly use of 21st century tools to perform his 1st century office. He is photographed washing the feet of female convicts, posing for selfies with young visitors to the Vatican, embracing a man with a deformed face. He is quoted saying of women who consider abortion because of poverty or rape, “Who can remain unmoved before such painful situations?” Of gay people: “If a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge.” To divorced and remarried Catholics who are, by rule, forbidden from taking Communion, he says that this crucial rite “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”
And:
He can barely contain his outrage when he writes, “How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?” Elsewhere in his exhortation, he goes directly after capitalism and globalization: “Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This ­opinion … has never been confirmed by the facts.” He says the church must work “to eliminate the structural causes of poverty” and adds that while “the Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike … he is obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor.”
ADDED: Is that last sentence miswritten or does the Pope talk about himself in the third person like that? I looked it up. The answer is the latter, or really neither. It's more of an opinion about the role of whoever occupies the position of Pope.

78 comments:

rehajm said...

The pope uses pejoratives like trickle down, yet says nothing about the tax exempt status of the church.

rhhardin said...

The most humble man in the world.

surfed said...

The old cliche holds true for Time magazine - even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Crimso said...

"This ­opinion … has never been confirmed by the facts."

Milton Friedman did not seem to think this was true. IIRC, he said something to the effect that "history is clear" when going on to say that free market capitalism has been the only vehicle in history shown to lift humans out of their normal state of grinding poverty. I'd think Friedman would know more about this than the Pope.

harrogate said...

“How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?”

A good question, isn't it?

dbp said...

Ah, the wisdom of crowds: The Pope got the most votes in the last post: Some people were vague or picked more than one, so these numbers could be nudged one direction or the other.

Pope 10
Obama 4
Snowden 9
Windsor 2

rehajm said...

The economic principles the pope criticizes have done more to lift more of humanity out of poverty than has ever occurred in the history of humanity. People thrive where free market economic principles thrive. People suffer where they don't.

"Must be a king."
"Why?"
"He hasn't got shit all over him."

Illuninati said...

Pope Francis is obviously not a good economist but he is a shrewd marketer for his church. He sees the world in terms of God and natural laws while the Marxists/leftist view the world through economic/class struggle. Pope Francis is using their language to promote his world view. It is working to a point.

The question is, will he be able to compete with the Marxists on their own turf or will his words hasten the transition of Western Civilization from our Judeo-Christian culture back to paganism? By encouraging a world view in which the sole arbiter of values is economic redistribution the pope may well hasten the demise of the church he is trying to lead.

Clyde said...

Back to twerk, Miley. Maybe next time she should use a papal miter instead of a foam finger if she wants to catch TIME's eye.

garage mahal said...

Anyone but Snowden. So tired hearing about that dude.

SJ said...

Interestingly, the Pope didn't talk about "trickle-down" bringing people out of poverty or not.

He talked about whether it increased justice and inclusiveness.

I think he may be mistaken in part; but we in the United States may be mistaken in assuming that all the societies of the world should follow a particular economic pattern.

But I note that the Pope's priorities are not those of secular Western-European culture.

I would join him in asking about justice. Not that the capitalist economy is unique in promoting injustice, but that injustice is a problem that all societies face.

The thing that makes me ask "say what?" is the addition of inclusiveness to justice. I don't get it.

The Drill SGT said...

The name of a humble saint

perhaps, but also, perhaps on of the most venerated and famous religious figures in history

Matthew Sablan said...

I am so uncultured, I don't even know who Windsor IS. I'd have picked the Pope too; the person of the year suffers from recentism, and the Pope has been in the news, recently.

Matthew Sablan said...

Though, a quick Google jogged my memory. I don't know if, even knowing what I know now, I would have seen her getting the nod. She's impacted North America, but usually the person of the year is a world-changing individual.

Either or, I think the Pope is a good choice. I don't know enough about him to really argue cogently about his positions though.

tim in vermont said...

This was "overdetermined" I think Kaus calls it.

surfed said...

What the world really needs is a Party Pope. Youngish...rumors around the edges of dalliances with cloistered nuns, late nights and even later mornings, large bar tabs left unpaid for Vatican clerics to issue statements about...No?

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

'unless the Time folk are itching to play Obama's recently attempted income inequality theme. I think that would be shabby, so I say no."

You can never be cynical enough when it comes to the media's cheerleading for the dems.

Paul Zrimsek said...

John Paul II enjoyed a similar burst of Temporary Moral Authority during the war on Iraq. It never lasts; sooner or later someone mentions birth control and the Pope's back to being an obsolete mossback.

Curious George said...

"unless the Time folk are itching to play Obama's recently attempted income inequality theme. I think that would be shabby, so I say no."

Seriously? They ignore the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, the targeting of American citizens by the IRS, and the spying on reporters and you think this is where they draw the line?

What a rube.

Renee said...

I love the Pope. I hate how the media twists his words.

I didn't want the Pope to be POY for this reason.

Renee said...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/12/vote-now-time-serves-up-the-correction-of-the-year/

From "Get Religion"

"As always, TIME’s editors will choose the Person of the Year, but that doesn’t mean readers shouldn’t have their say. Cast your vote for the person you think most influenced the news this year for better or worse – in both a straight yes/no poll and a candidate face-off. Voting closes at 11:59 p.m. on Dec. 4, and the combined winner of our reader polls will be announced on Dec. 6. TIME’s Person of the Year will be announced Dec. 11. …
The first Jesuit Pontiff won hearts and headlines with his common touch and rejection of luxury.
And here comes the correction. Wait for it.
Correction: An earlier version of this post suggested that Pope Francis rejected some church dogma. He does not."


At the end of the post they have the Google cache that shows how Time misrepresents the Pope.



Joe said...

I fail to see what Pope Francis has actually done in any tangible way. It's all rhetoric.

Then again, Time's Person of the Year is all about gloss and selling copy.

geokstr said...

The pope was speaking of the "poor", and most of real poverty is not in the one country that at least gave limited capitalism a decent shot before the leftists could cripple it.

Most of the "poor" in the US have flat-screens, one or more cars, cell phones, medical care, food, energy and rental assistance, free education and negative income tax. No one starves to death here, there are virtually no deaths from "exposure".

Unlike nearly all of the leftwing dictatorships, despots, Islamic monarchies, and communist collectives, where people starve and die from lack of medical treatment or exposure due to political corruption, incompetence or outright malice.

How have India and China been able to lift so many out of poverty in less than two generations? By embracing at least some of the precepts of capitalism: private property, private investment, limited individual liberties, etc.

Of course, the left here chooses to interpret the pope's words to mean that in the US, we need to eliminate the rightwing rich, give away lots more freebies to their "poor" supporters and increase the wealth of their own cronies. Trickle-up and to the left, if you will.

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

— Robert Heinlein

SteveR said...

Well he's done enough to win the Nobel Peace Prize, right?

Renee said...

Yesterday I wrote to an editor of The Raw Story about a blog post from October 21st.

"Today (December 9th) on Facebook, a Jewish man posted this entry deeply confused on what happened to the Catholic Church. The Raw Story had the headline, "Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’ within the Church". The Raw Story headline was very salacious to your readers, who couldn't resist going ideological and not read the entry.  As a Catholic, I  pulled up the Vatican article for the Jewish man with the headline "Pope Francis: Prayer keeps us from losing Faith". I'm not sure if that would be as exciting for your readers. "


A homliy about prayer and attending Mass, becomes a bashing fun fest for atheist progressives against teabaggers in the comment section.

The Pope is Catholic. And I agree with Joe.

William said...

I think the crimes of Communism and third world liberation are consistently under publicized. How does it happen that a famine in the Ukraine kills that kills several million people goes unreported but a breadline in America is considered an injustice that cries to heaven..........Argentinians are not famous for their grasp of economics. That said, this Pope is putting the accent mark on the right syllables although I do question his grammar.

Broomhandle said...

The Papacy, like the British royal family, is a PR dumbshow that exists to prop up the institutions of State (or in this case, Church). The notion that successfully rising through the RC bureaucracy somehow makes you fit to call yourself Christ's Vicar on Earth is staggeringly arrogant. It should have been Snowden, but Time magazine has been a joke since at least 1968 so who cares.

jacksonjay said...


What? No consideration given to Lena Dunham?
An outrage!
Was she '12 or '13?

wildswan said...

The left has been misinterpreting statements by Church leaders since Vatican II in 1964. To my mind the Pope was reminding Catholics that they should not let themselves become enslaved to any party or ideology. And if you look at African-Americans who are enslaved to the Democrats you can see even in secular terms why it is necessary to keep reminding people that we all have an agenda which is beyond that of any party. African-Americans have an unemployment rate of 20% and still they slavishly adhere to the Democrats who are promoting amnesty for Hispanics, right now Amnesty would add 11,000,000 competitors to the weak job market, right now. Why would African-American groups support it right now? Similarly why would values voters support Republicans if the Republicans refuse to support the values voters?

gerry said...

Argentinians are not famous for their grasp of economics

Argentinians are not famous for their grasp of economics

I put that in twice because you can sure say THAT again.

Argentina's capitalism is an economic oligarchy, and it is from that context that Pope Francis draws his advice and opinion.

Paul Zrimsek said it well. How soon will the Pope be, in the estimate of the elitist MSM, an "obsolete mossback"?

cubanbob said...

gerry said...
Argentinians are not famous for their grasp of economics

Argentinians are not famous for their grasp of economics

I put that in twice because you can sure say THAT again."

So true. Their problem is that they want to live like Western Europeans but have a Latin American economy.

Birches said...

Its impossible to know the linguistic context Pope Francis has when he uses the phrase "trickle down theories." First of all, we're talking about someone who's words were translated into English. In addition, we as Americans assume he's speaking of Ronald Reagan when the translated words come out "tickle down theories," but we have no idea what original Spanish phrase he uttered and if has been co-opted by Argentine oligarchs to mean something completely different than what we understand.

Tempest in a teapot. The greater point is that, of course the rich are supposed to help and care for the poor. Most faithful Christians do that in spades in comparison to their statist Bretheren.

Inga said...



The question is, will he be able to compete with the Marxists on their own turf or will his words hasten the transition of Western Civilization from our Judeo-Christian culture back to paganism? By encouraging a world view in which the sole arbiter of values is economic redistribution the pope may well hasten the demise of the church he is trying to lead.

12/11/13, 8:02 AM

Oh yes, absolutely, the head of the oldest Christian religion in the world will undoubtedly bring about world wide paganism! And don't forget Marxism.

Inga said...



The question is, will he be able to compete with the Marxists on their own turf or will his words hasten the transition of Western Civilization from our Judeo-Christian culture back to paganism? By encouraging a world view in which the sole arbiter of values is economic redistribution the pope may well hasten the demise of the church he is trying to lead.

12/11/13, 8:02 AM

Oh yes, absolutely, the head of the oldest Christian religion in the world will undoubtedly bring about world wide paganism! And don't forget Marxism.

Jason said...

Somewhere, Pope Emeritus Benedict is sitting on a sofa wearing a wife beater and yelling "WHAT? A fucking JESUIT!??!?!?!?!?!" and throwing beer cans at the TV.

Renee said...

OK Jason. That is funny! Terrible, but funny.

William said...

The Church has an age old prejudice against usury that predates Marxism by hundreds and hundreds of years. Usury, masturbation, eating meat on Friday: the Church's moral guidance on some issues hasn't been completely on the money, but, on balance, they've done a lot better than the Politburo and the NY Times editorial board.

Renee said...

Funny comic on Pope Francis ordering a pizza, and Pope Benedict giving him a hard time about it.

http://www.jasonbachcartoons.com/catholic-09.html

Illuninati said...

Inga said:
"Oh yes, absolutely, the head of the oldest Christian religion in the world will undoubtedly bring about world wide paganism! And don't forget Marxism."

Welcome back Inga.

Obviously the pope does not intend to promote paganism but his words might lead to unintentional consequences. The delighted response from the left is not a good sign. They apparently believe he has ceded the moral high ground which will simply strengthen the left in their war against our traditional Judeo-Christian culture.

Chef Mojo said...

The blowback against Pope Francis will be horrific, when he pivots inevitably to issues concerning lady parts and homosexuality.

"WHAT? A fucking JESUIT!??!?!?!?!?!"

Exactly. And the left is gonna howl with outrage when that becomes very clear.

Renee said...

(Vatican Radio ) Pope Francis has been named Time Magazine's ‘Person of the Year’ for 2013. He is the third Roman Pontiff to receive this honour after John XXIII in 1962 and John Paul II in 1994.
The Head of the Holy See’s Press Office, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, issued the following statement:
“The decision didn’t come as a surprise given the great resonance and attention surrounding the election of Pope Francis right from the start of the new pontificate. The fact that one of the most prestigious awards to be attributed by the international press should go to someone who promotes spiritual, religious and moral values as well as call for peace and greater justice in an incisive manner is a positive sign. As for the Pope himself, he’s not someone who seeks fame and success, because he has put his life at the service of announcing the Gospel of the love of God for mankind. It is pleasing to the Pope that this service should appeal and give hope to women and men. And if this choice of ‘Person of the Year’ should mean that many people have understood this message - at least implicitly - the Pope is really happy about this."

Paul S said...

rehajm said:

"The pope uses pejoratives like trickle down"

The Pope did not use the pejorative 'trickle down' in the original spanish text. His language is much more subtle and nuanced.

That phrase only came about through dishonest interpretations of the original spanish text by suspect news organizations.

The original spanish is:

"En este contexto, algunos todavía defienden las teorías del “derrame,” que suponen que todo crecimiento económico, favorecido por la libertad de mercado, logra provocar por sí mismo mayor equidad e inclusión social en el mundo."

Ignorance is Bliss said...

harrogate said...

“How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?”

A good question, isn't it?


Not really, for two reasons. First, the stock drop is news in the same way that tomorrow's temperature being predicted to be the same as today's is news. It is a minor thing that touches many people directly, but is most significant in terms of what didn't happen. People want to know that the temperature is not dropping 20 degrees, they want to know that the stock market did not drop 200.

Second, given that the total market capitalization is ~$19 trillion, and the Dow is ~16,000, a two point drop is ~$1.2 billion dollars lost ( assuming the Dow is representative of the entire market, which it is not, but people use it as a proxy, which is reasonable ). While that is spread out over many people and institutions, it has real consequences for how many people companies can hire, how much employees and investors make, and how much is available for taxes to pay for government services and how much is donated to charity. I'd bet that loss of money would result in many more deaths than just that one homeless person.

rehajm said...

The Pope did not use the pejorative 'trickle down' in the original spanish text. His language is much more subtle and nuanced.

That phrase only came about through dishonest interpretations of the original spanish text by suspect news organizations.

The original spanish is:

"En este contexto, algunos todavía defienden las teorías del “derrame,” que suponen que todo crecimiento económico, favorecido por la libertad de mercado, logra provocar por sí mismo mayor equidad e inclusión social en el mundo."


Teoría del derrame.(en inglés: Trickle-down effect)

Illuninati said...

Once you recognize that the leftists are pagans with their own pagan gods the evidence is all around. Here is a quote from Elian Gonzales who is thoroughly indoctrinated in Marxism.

"I don't profess to have any religion but if I did my God would be Fidel Castro. He is like a ship that knew to take his crew on the right path."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2520298/Elian-Gonzalez-cuban-boy-center-bitter-custody-battle-speaks-out.html

harrogate said...

Ignorance is Bliss,

That's a good answer on the whole, which in fact could open up some pretty good dialogue on more than a few fronts. Though I wonder if, even ceding your point entirely, it needs must be the case that the dead homeless person be no story at all?

At any rate: your answer proves that your first response was wrong. It IS a good question that the Pope asked. The potentil existence of even a definitive answer to a question doesn't thereby render the question bad, after all.

Inga said...

Illuninati, the problem is that you continuously conflate American leftism with Communism. Such an exaggeration tends to diminish the point you're trying to make (or IS your point that American leftism is on par with Communism and paganism?) Instead it makes you sound less based in reality and a bit extreme.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I didn't think it was a good question because I thought the answer was pretty obvious, and the obvious answer does not lead to an interesting discussion.

As to why the homeless person dying is not news, I have two answers. First, in every place I have ever lived the dead homeless person would be a much bigger news item than a two point stock drop. Second, the places where it would not make the paper are mostly large cities ( at least in this country ), and those cities are overwhelmingly liberal, so they place little value on human life.

Rusty said...

harrogate said...
“How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?”

A good question, isn't it?

Not really.
Why is he homeless?
Why haven't you given him a home.

Fred Drinkwater said...

Say what? Dead homeless people are not news? Not where I live.
Local news here, every winter, especially when there is a cold snap, run stories on people being found frozen, the troubles of homeless shelters, and (it being The Season) soup kitchens.

Rusty said...

Inga said...
Illuninati, the problem is that you continuously conflate American leftism with Communism.

He was being kind. Intelligent people equate the American left with stupidity.

Illuninati said...

Inga said:
"Illuninati, the problem is that you continuously conflate American leftism with Communism....Instead it makes you sound less based in reality and a bit extreme."

I try to base my opinions on reality. The reason I believe that there is an organic connection between the American left and Marxism is because the American left has already made that connection. A prime example is when Michael Moore made his celebrated documentary about the inadequacy of American and the superiority of government healthcare. He could have used a country like Germany which has a successful healthcare system, but instead chose to promote the healthcare system in Cuba, a totalitarian Marxist society, as the ideal healthcare system. If the left were not soul brothers of Marx, they would not have celebrated that "documentary film."

Rusty said...


I think he may be mistaken in part; but we in the United States may be mistaken in assuming that all the societies of the world should follow a particular economic pattern.


Free markets are a manifestation of human behavior. What people do with their money. In that respect they are organic and are practiced every where.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Also, I'd say it wasn't a good question because it was not being asked in an attempt to get an answer, it was asked as a rhetorical device that assumed that we would reach the same conclusion as he wrongly did.

garage mahal said...

Limbaugh is attacking the Pope calling him a Marxist. Wonder who will win this fight? Bwhahaha.

SJ said...

@Rusty,

fair criticism.

The more I think about it, the closer I get to a statement something like it might be hubris to assume that 'trickle-down' (or its Spanish equivalent) has the same meaning in Argentina that it has in the United States, alongside the culture of Argentina (or other parts of the world) may not easily support a market system like the one we have in the United States.

There's also the question of whether the economic system practiced in either the U.S. or in Argentina is truly free-market.

And whether the comment about "trickle-down systems" was a comment about the free market, or some hybrid system in which powerful businesses and governments channel trade to their own ends, and pretend that they are supporting a free market.

Paul Zrimsek said...

I suggest that every time a homeless person dies he gets a Page 1 headline: LOCAL PARISH LETS ANOTHER ONE CROAK. Than we're all satisfied.

Paul Zrimsek said...

There's also the question of whether the economic system practiced in either the U.S. or in Argentina is truly free-market.

Any ideas for getting the Pope interested in that question? His screed simply assumes that they are.

Michael said...

The left will be pleased to note that the Pope believes homosexual acts, abortion, birth control (even free birth control), gay marriage and female priests should be considered as sinful or against doctrine . I doubt there is a single person at Time who would agree

Smilin' Jack said...

… he is obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor.”

Who's richer than God? And what's He done for the poor lately?

richardsson said...

Thank you Paul S. Here's my high school Spanish to English translation:

"In this context, some people nevertheless defend the theories of "leakage" that all economic growth, "favorable" to the liberty of the market, provokes equal gains for greater equity and social inclusion in the world."

I learned Mexican Spanish and there are a couple of evidently Argentine phrases. I used "leakage" for derrame, but I think "trickle down" is in fact what the Pope meant. For better or worse.

hombre said...

"Trickle-down" is a pejorative coined by lefties and propagated by the media and Democrats to facilitate the participation of economic illiterates in conversations about the economy conducted at the basest levels.

Unfortunately, the Pope, who learned about economics in corrupt, bankrupt Argentina is apparently an example of this.

One hopes that time will mellow him away from the political/economic statements that have endeared him to Time which in some instances seem to, hopefully unintentionally, depart from principals he is expected to embody.

richardsson said...

Opps, my translation should read:

..."leakage" that surmises that all economic growth...

leakage is literal but trickle down is what the Pope meant.

hombre said...

Joe wrote: "I fail to see what Pope Francis has actually done in any tangible way. It's all rhetoric."

People of the left prefer to measure, and to be measured by, rhetoric rather than achievement.

For example, look at what they say about Black America as opposed to what they have done for, or to, Black America.

Rusty said...


There's also the question of whether the economic system practiced in either the U.S. or in Argentina is truly free-market.

Now that's a point to discuss.
It's been my opinion that we have too many unwanted parties getting between the buyer and seller here.

SOJO said...

Jon Stewart, Stuart Varney, the Pope, and Capitalism:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-5-2013/the-amazing-raise---stuart-varney-vs--pope-francis

(Check out JS expression on @0:21. Hah. I wish I had the ability to temporarily make my face a mask of disdainful rectitude like that, only to have it morph back into jovial a second later.)

Rusty said...

The lefts view of capitalism is that the "rich" have a room in their mansion where they keep all their money. From time to time they, the "rich", like to get naked and swim around in it while shooting widows and orphans.

The reality is much,much different.

Robert Cook said...

"...Michael Moore made his celebrated documentary about the inadequacy of American and the superiority of government healthcare. He could have used a country like Germany which has a successful healthcare system, but instead chose to promote the healthcare system in Cuba, a totalitarian Marxist society, as the ideal healthcare system. If the left were not soul brothers of Marx, they would not have celebrated that 'documentary film.'"

You have missed Moore's point and also misrepresented his example: he wasn't using Cuba as an example of the benefits of government healthcare because it was a Communist system, but because it is a poor fucking country. Yet, poor as it is, it provides its citizens with access to health care. His point had to do with the glaring contrast between the rich nation America--so many of whose citizens languish in ill-health for lack of ability to afford insurance, (or lack of ability to be accepted due to "pre-existing conditions"),or who go bankrupt as a result of medical bills they cannot pay, even when they often have health insurance they have bought and paid for--and the poor nation Cuba allocating its much more meager resources to provide its citizens healthcare.

Also, Moore did not present Cuba as an example of the "ideal healthcare system," but as an example of another way healthcare can be made available in a soceity to those who need it.

Saint Croix said...

One of the things the Pope can and should do is try to get liberals off their single, solitary obsession with money. To listen to liberals, you might think greed is the only sin in the world.

It would do liberals a lot of good to think about greed and lust in the same way. Are you out in the street waving signs about lust? Are you complaining that some people have too much sex?

Because you do that with greed and money all the time.

Instead of focusing on the poor, and how to help them (hint: try capitalism!), too many liberals want to hate on rich people. But hating other people for their greed blinds you to your own sins.

For instance, you want their money. that's a sin, too.

Inga said...

SOJO, thanks for that link.
"Jon Stewart, Stuart Varney, the Pope, and Capitalism:"

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-5-2013/the-amazing-raise---stuart-varney-vs--pope-francis

12/11/13, 3:18 PM

Hahahaha! "Look at the beard, the guy is clearly a Marxist."

Broomhandle said...

"he wasn't using Cuba as an example of the benefits of government healthcare because it was a Communist system, but because it is a poor fucking country"

I've often commented on the irony impairment of the Left but a blind man could have knocked this one out of the park.

Saint Croix said...

He is quoted saying of women who consider abortion because of poverty...“Who can remain unmoved before such painful situations?”

I am unmoved. Completely. I object to defining a baby as a cost estimate on a balance sheet.

This Pope might comment on the piles of dead bodies that seem to flow naturally from socialist economics.

You might also make comment about adoption. And cry just a bit for the pain of a baby who is stabbed to death.

Paul Zrimsek said...

One of the things the Pope can and should do is try to get liberals off their single, solitary obsession with money.

Little chance of that. What mainstream liberals are doing here is pretty much the same thing they do whenever John McCain issues one of his periodic attacks on the GOP, and all of a sudden they're busy pretending that they ever gave a damn what John McCain thinks about anything.

Rusty said...

Bob actually thinks it was a documentary.

Cuba doesn't offer healthcare. It offers miserable places to die.

Why is Cuba poor, Bob?

Illuninati said...

Robert Cooke said:
"You have missed Moore's point and also misrepresented his example: he wasn't using Cuba as an example of the benefits of government healthcare because it was a Communist system, but because it is a poor fucking country."

Sorry I've been out and dropped the discussion. For my purposes, whatever Michael Moore's point might be when he praised Cuba is irrelevant. The fact that he chose a Communist totalitarian dictatorship to praise while shaming our country is what interests me.

Robert Cook said...

"For my purposes, whatever Michael Moore's point might be when he praised Cuba is irrelevant."

Illuminati,

If you consider to be irrelevant--"for your purposes"--the point of a comparison being made by someone you deride for the comparison they're making, you reveal intellectual incoherence. Certainly, that you drew an incorrect inference of the point of Moore's comparison makes irrelevant any remarks you make about that comparison.

Robert Cook said...

"Why is Cuba poor, Bob?"

Well, Rusty, as with many a seemingly simple question with a seemingly straightforward answer, that's complicated.

The embargo placed on Cuba in 1960 by the United States and still in effect today certainly cannot be ignored as having contributed significantly to Cuba's economic difficulties, (just as internal corruption and other failings of their own have done).

Again, the reasons for Cuba's poverty are beside the point of Moore's comparison, which had to do strictly with the health outcomes of poor Cuba and rich America, and the strikingly close W.H.O. rankings of the health systems of Cuba and the Unites States (39 and 37, respectively, at the time the film was made).

Moore also looked at other, economically healthy countries that provide health care to their citizens, (Canada, the UK, France); he included Cuba specifically to compare how badly the United States' system of health care delivery performs relative to the vastly poorer Cuba in health outcomes for its citizens.

Joe said...

You're being generous hombre: for the left and far too many on the right what matters is intentions.