53percenter's Blog

Religious illiteracy is alive and well at the New York Times.

The Washington Free Beacon’s Alex Griswold reports a doozy of a Times correction around a flowerily written story (reported as if it were witnessed firsthand), about the priest who rescued the ‘Body of Christ’ from the burning Notre Dame cathedral in Paris Monday. To be fair, it was respectfully written. But it sure as heck got a big fact wrong. Griswold begins:

I was intrigued today by the mystery of a small Jesus statue that features prominently in a New York Times story on Father Jean-Marc Fournier, the Paris Fire Department chaplain who risked his life to save many of Notre Dame cathedral’s prized relics. “I had two priorities: to save the crown of thorns and a statue of Jesus,” Father Fournier supposedly said.

The statue continues to star in the story:

As the chaplain began removing a statue of Jesus, he said, his colleagues were fighting the fire from the cathedral’s towers. The flames had started to threaten the wooden structure around the belfry — putting the whole cathedral at even greater risk.

With the statue in hand, Father Fournier, alone in the nave, gave a benediction to the cathedral, he said.

After that, the Times made a correction stating that it had misstated the object the priest had recovered in the flames – the ”Blessed Sacrament” rather than a statue of Jesus. It was a weird error, and unavoidably pointed to a problem of the reporter thinking the words ‘Body of Christ’ had to mean ‘statue of Jesus,’ something that would seem logical to someone who had never heard of Catholicism.

Griswold observes:

Hooooo boy. I figured this was common knowledge, but Christians do this thing once a week where, as one modern-day saint put it, we drink our little wine and eat our little cracker. We call the bread the “Body of Christ” and the wine the “Blood of Christ,” a ceremony that dates back to the example Jesus himself set the night before he was crucified. Catholics in particular assign more importance to communion than most Protestants do, teaching that the bread becomes the literal body of Jesus Christ.

There’s the possibility of some sort of translation error, but the Times reporter in question appears to be fluent in French. No, something was lost in translation alright, but I suspect that it was just a case of good-old fashioned religious illiteracy. The guy assigned to report on the biggest religion story of the day was really that ignorant of one of the most important ceremonies in the dominant religion on both sides of the Atlantic.

Which would fit the New York Times and its smarmy urban hipsters on staff to a tee.

The problem of course is that the paper was covering the biggest religious story of the year, with a reporter who knew nothing about the religion, and an editing staff that apparently didn’t spot the discrepancy in its coverage compared to other news outlets’ coverage, so as to ask the reporter if he knew what he was talking about. New York Times reporters are among the best paid in the business – and have a reputation of being staffed by people who are always ‘the smartest kid in the class.’ Ummm…

Sounds like a case of style over actual substance.

I am struck by how the reporter wrote the story as if he did know what he was talking about because he was there – his on-the-ground descriptive details suggest someone who watched the whole thing unfold himself instead of glommed off other people’s reporting, misinterpreting the phrases.

That’s where the credibility killer is. Next time you read a New York Times report in this style, are you going to believe the paper knows what it’s talking about? They not only were not there, they didn’t understand what they were told by people who were there.

Hat tip: Instapundit’s Ed Driscoll

Image credit: Pixabay public domain

 

 

Religious illiteracy is alive and well at the New York Times.

The Washington Free Beacon’s Alex Griswold reports a doozy of a Times correction around a flowerily written story (reported as if it were witnessed firsthand), about the priest who rescued the ‘Body of Christ’ from the burning Notre Dame cathedral in Paris Monday. To be fair, it was respectfully written. But it sure as heck got a big fact wrong. Griswold begins:

I was intrigued today by the mystery of a small Jesus statue that features prominently in a New York Times story on Father Jean-Marc Fournier, the Paris Fire Department chaplain who risked his life to save many of Notre Dame cathedral’s prized relics. “I had two priorities: to save the crown of thorns and a statue of Jesus,” Father Fournier supposedly said.

The statue continues to star in the story:

As the chaplain began removing a statue of Jesus, he said, his colleagues were fighting the fire from the cathedral’s towers. The flames had started to threaten the wooden structure around the belfry — putting the whole cathedral at even greater risk.

With the statue in hand, Father Fournier, alone in the nave, gave a benediction to the cathedral, he said.

After that, the Times made a correction stating that it had misstated the object the priest had recovered in the flames – the ”Blessed Sacrament” rather than a statue of Jesus. It was a weird error, and unavoidably pointed to a problem of the reporter thinking the words ‘Body of Christ’ had to mean ‘statue of Jesus,’ something that would seem logical to someone who had never heard of Catholicism.

Griswold observes:

Hooooo boy. I figured this was common knowledge, but Christians do this thing once a week where, as one modern-day saint put it, we drink our little wine and eat our little cracker. We call the bread the “Body of Christ” and the wine the “Blood of Christ,” a ceremony that dates back to the example Jesus himself set the night before he was crucified. Catholics in particular assign more importance to communion than most Protestants do, teaching that the bread becomes the literal body of Jesus Christ.

There’s the possibility of some sort of translation error, but the Times reporter in question appears to be fluent in French. No, something was lost in translation alright, but I suspect that it was just a case of good-old fashioned religious illiteracy. The guy assigned to report on the biggest religion story of the day was really that ignorant of one of the most important ceremonies in the dominant religion on both sides of the Atlantic.

Which would fit the New York Times and its smarmy urban hipsters on staff to a tee.

The problem of course is that the paper was covering the biggest religious story of the year, with a reporter who knew nothing about the religion, and an editing staff that apparently didn’t spot the discrepancy in its coverage compared to other news outlets’ coverage, so as to ask the reporter if he knew what he was talking about. New York Times reporters are among the best paid in the business – and have a reputation of being staffed by people who are always ‘the smartest kid in the class.’ Ummm…

Sounds like a case of style over actual substance.

I am struck by how the reporter wrote the story as if he did know what he was talking about because he was there – his on-the-ground descriptive details suggest someone who watched the whole thing unfold himself instead of glommed off other people’s reporting, misinterpreting the phrases.

That’s where the credibility killer is. Next time you read a New York Times report in this style, are you going to believe the paper knows what it’s talking about? They not only were not there, they didn’t understand what they were told by people who were there.

Hat tip: Instapundit’s Ed Driscoll

Image credit: Pixabay public domain

 

 

The opening shots of a bloody civil war between socialist fanatics and old guard Democrats have been fired…

The so-called resistance is swarming like a horde of angry hornets after Nancy Pelosi’s nationally televised smackdown of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez during a “60 Minutes” interview on Sunday.

The leader of House Democrats has been sending signals that she may be at the end of her patience with the former bartender who has dominated the media and repeatedly embarrassed Pelosi who despite being a leftist herself, is a longtime member of the party establishment.

Ocasio-Cortez’s act may have crossed Pelosi’s red line after the PAC that was behind her candidacy – Justice Democrats – promoted a blacklist targeting the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and threatening to primary House members who didn’t bend to their extremist agenda.

Pelosi’s condescending remarks to Stahl about the size of AOC’s following and her firm rejection of socialism were only the beginning.

She continued her mockery of the 29-year-old freshman when she further punctured the thin-skinned Twitter diva’s bubble by remarking that a “glass of water” with a “D” next to it would have won New York’s 14th congressional district.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi takes another shot at socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), says a “glass of water” with a “D” next to it “would win” in Ocasio-Cortez’s district. pic.twitter.com/sPbhEUTeir

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) April 15, 2019

Fighting words!

Count Michael Moore among those who are really, really pissed off at Pelosi and true to form, the porcine propagandist took to Twitter to vent his displeasure with both ageist and racist remarks about Madame Speaker.

Moore invoked the left’s dog whistle term of “privilege” which is every bit as racist as the N-word and other slurs only the left continues to get a pass on such vile terminology.

White people. Nobody likes giving up power. And they never see the writing on the wall. The new day arrives and no one has the heart to tell them they and their old tired privileged ways are over. https://t.co/jAGjzEjLgp

— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) April 15, 2019

Via The Hill, “Michael Moore slams Pelosi after ’60 Minutes’ interview: Her ‘old tired privileged ways are over’”:

Liberal activist and filmmaker Michael Moore slammed Speaker Nancy Pelosi Monday after she appeared on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” saying the California Democrat’s “old tired privileged ways are over.”

Moore included a clip from Pelosi’s interview in his tweet where she said that the progressive flank of the House Democratic Caucus, including freshmen such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), is “like five people.”

The hypocrisy of Michael Moore is endless.

He himself is a wealthy white man who it could be pointed out would have personally benefited from such “privilege” were such a thing to actually exist outside of being a junk term bandied about by cynics and bitter losers looking for someone else to blame for their own failures.

One of those bitter losers would be the grumpy old man in the ratty baseball cap who used to be relevant. According to the most recent barometer of his success which was the heavily-hyped anti-Trump movie “Fahrenheit 11/9”  which bombed at the box office, is the one whose days are really nearing the end while he brays like a mastodon being sucked under in a tar pit in 280 characters.

The deterioration of what was once a legitimate party is gaining momentum…

Democrats are in complete lockstep with their defense of Rep. Ilhan Omar over her latest controversial outburst and that is especially the case with many of the contestants who are competing for the party’s presidential nomination next year.

Despite the simple fact that Omar just can’t keep her mouth shut and spare her party the indignity of having to defend her anti-Semitism and other insulting remarks, there is no distance between those seeking to run the country if they can beat President Trump.

The Somali-born freshman’s latest firestorm was set off when during a speech to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) which have been widely interpreted as being disrespectful if not dismissive to the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

According to Omar:

“Here’s the truth: Far too long we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen. And frankly, I’m tired of it, and every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it”

“CAIR was founded after 9/11, because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”

She then doubled-down by trying to suggest that what she said was nothing that then-President George W. Bush didn’t say:

“The people — and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” President George W. Bush

Was Bush downplaying the terrorist attack?

What if he was a Muslim 🤔 https://t.co/XMazssoD49

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) April 12, 2019

There is an unwritten rule in politics that “when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging” but Omar continues to ask for a bigger shovel and her bigotry and hatred for the country that took her in as a refugee continues to be enabled by top Democrats.

Several Democratic 2020 hopefuls have come out in defense of Rep. Ilhan Omar after the president and conservative media attacked her for comments they portrayed as minimizing the September 11 attacks https://t.co/JHyjk7Tvmt

— POLITICO (@politico) April 13, 2019

Via Politico, “2020 Dems defend Rep. Omar from Trump amid controversy over 9/11 remarks”:

Several Democratic 2020 hopefuls have come out in defense of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) after conservative media and President Donald Trump attacked her for comments they portrayed as minimizing the September 11 attacks.

Omar has reportedly since received death threats for the remarks, but her fellow Democrats were quick to denounce Trump for going after Omar and taking the comment out of context.

“Ilhan Omar is a leader with strength and courage. She won’t back down to Trump’s racism and hate, and neither will we. The disgusting and dangerous attacks against her must end,” Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted Friday.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren both condemned the attacks against Omar as not only dangerous for the congresswoman, but Muslims in the U.S. in general.

“President Trump’s inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric towards Ilhan Omar is jeopardizing her safety. He is deliberately putting her and all Muslim Americans in harm’s way,” Inslee tweeted Friday.

Warren also tweeted Friday in a similar vein: “The President is inciting violence against a sitting Congresswoman—and an entire group of Americans based on their religion. It’s disgusting. It’s shameful. And any elected leader who refuses to condemn it shares responsibility for it.”

Whether Rep. Omar has actually received “death threats” as per the party talking points is likely viewed by many with appropriate skepticism in the aftermath of the Jussie Smollett hate hoax.

For two years, this President has used the most powerful platform in the world to sow hate & division. He’s done it again. Putting the safety of a sitting member of Congress @IlhanMN at risk & vilifying a whole religion is beyond the pale. I’ll be blunt — we must defeat him.

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) April 13, 2019

Ilhan Omar is a leader with strength and courage. She won’t back down to Trump’s racism and hate, and neither will we. The disgusting and dangerous attacks against her must end.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) April 13, 2019

The President is inciting violence against a sitting Congresswoman—and an entire group of Americans based on their religion. It’s disgusting. It’s shameful. And any elected leader who refuses to condemn it shares responsibility for it.

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) April 13, 2019

After 9/11 we all said we were changed. That we were stronger and more united. That’s what “never forget” was about. Now, a president uses that dark day to incite his base against a member of Congress, as if for sport. As if we learned nothing that day about the workings of hate.

— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) April 13, 2019

We are stronger than this president’s hatred and Islamophobia. Do not let him drive us apart or make us afraid.

— Beto O’Rourke (@BetoORourke) April 13, 2019

Someone has already been charged with a serious threat on Congresswoman Omar’s life. The video the President chose to send out today will only incite more hate. You can disagree with her words—as I have done before—but this video is wrong. Enough.

— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) April 13, 2019

And some chatter from the “kid’s table” field of candidates:

As a Senator who represents 9/11 victims, I can’t accept any minimizing of that pain. But Trump’s dangerous rhetoric against @IlhanMN is disgusting. It’s a false choice to suggest we can’t fight terrorism and reject Islamophobic hate at once—a president should do both.

— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) April 13, 2019

President Trump’s inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric towards Ilhan Omar is jeopardizing her safety. He is deliberately putting her and all Muslim Americans in harm’s way.

— Jay Inslee (@JayInslee) April 13, 2019

The grandstanding is just more hypocrisy from the left who never expressed much outrage when a lunatic Bernie Sanders supporter attempted to massacre the entire Republican congressional baseball team when they were at practice in 2017 after he was pushed over the edge by Democrat and media hate mongering.

There should never be any doubt as to which side that these radicals are standing.

President Donald Trump challenged statements on Friday that White House employees made, as detailed in the Robert Mueller report.

“Because I never agreed to testify, it was not necessary for me to respond to statements made in the ‘Report’ about me, some of which are total bullshit & only given to make the other person look good (or me to look bad),” Trump wrote on Twitter.

Trump did not detail which statements by which people he was challenging, but it was clear he was upset by parts of the report that included meeting notes. He challenged them as “fabricated & totally untrue.”

The report reveals that Trump was correctly suspicious of notetaking by his White House counsel, Don McGahn, and others.

The report shares a conversation between McGahn and his habit of taking notes:

The President then asked, “What-about these notes? Why do you take notes? Lawyers don’t take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes.” McGahn responded that he keeps notes because he is a “real lawyer” and explained that notes create a record and are not a bad thing. The President said, “I’ve had a lot of great lawyers, like Roy Cohn. He did not take notes.

Notes from Jeff Sessions’ chief of staff, Jody Hunt, revealed in the report that Trump was deeply disturbed by the news that a special counsel was appointed to the Russia investigation.

The report reads:

According to notes written by Hunt, when Sessions told the President that a Special Counsel had been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m fucked.” The President became angry and lambasted the Attorney General for his decision to recuse from the investigation, stating, “How could you let this happen, Jeff?”

On Twitter, Trump cast doubt on the veracity of the notes.

“Watch out for people that take so-called ‘notes,’ when the notes never existed until needed,” he wrote:

Statements are made about me by certain people in the Crazy Mueller Report, in itself written by 18 Angry Democrat Trump Haters, which are fabricated & totally untrue. Watch out for people that take so-called “notes,” when the notes never existed until needed. Because I never….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 19, 2019

…agreed to testify, it was not necessary for me to respond to statements made in the “Report” about me, some of which are total bullshit & only given to make the other person look good (or me to look bad). This was an Illegally Started Hoax that never should have happened, a…

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 19, 2019

TIME magazine’s 2019 list of the world’s 100 Most Influential People, published on Wednesday, includes the self-professed “proud” anti-semitic prime minister of Malaysia, who has publicly disparaged Jews as “hook-nosed.”

The magazine praised PM Mahathir Mohamad, who took office on May 2018, for coming out of retirement after ruling Malaysia for 22 years, adding:

The formidable old warhorse dazzled during a grueling campaign, gathering vast crowds; his reliance on core values united electoral groups, and his age inspired trust in a grand man of politics.

Citing the PM’s decision to liberate the 71-year-old former leader of the opposition Anwar Ibrahim, who is expected to replace Mohamad, TIME credits him with re-establishing democracy “in a country that almost teetered into totalitarianism.”

In an October 2018 interview with BBC, Mohamad described Jews as “hook-nosed” and denied the Holocaust that killed millions of them.

“There are many races in this world, I have said nasty things about them but they never accused me of being anti-this or anti-that,” he declared in response to criticism about his anti-semitic tendencies.

Asked about his derogatory comments, he doubled down, saying, “They are hook-nosed.”

“If you are going to be truthful, the problem in the Middle East began with the creation of the State of Israel, that is the whole truth,” the Malaysian prime minister also said. He again went on to cast doubt to the Holocaust.

The Malaysian PM has on multiple occasions welcomed the anti-semite moniker, saying he is glad to be one.

In Kuala Lumpur in 2003, the PM reportedly proclaimed, “I am glad to be labeled anti-Semitic.”

“How can I be otherwise, when the Jews who so often talk of the horrors they suffered during the Holocaust show the same Nazi cruelty and hard-heartedness towards not just their enemies but even towards their allies should any try to stop the senseless killing of their Palestinian enemies?” he asked at the time.

As Prime Minister, he banned Israel from participating in a Paralympic swimming qualifier taking place in his country for the 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympics before his government announced that Malaysia would no longer host any event that invites the state of Israel to participate at all.

 

In September 2018, some at the United Nations applauded the PM after his tirade against Israel during the General Assembly, the world’s biggest stage for peace and diplomacy.

Muhamad told the U.N.:

The world does not care even when Israel breaks international laws, seizing ships carrying medicine, food, and building materials in international waters. The Palestinians fired ineffective rockets which hurt no one. Massive retaliations were mounted by Israel, rocketing and bombing hospitals, schools and other buildings, killing innocent civilians including school children and hospital patients.

…

The world rewards Israel by deliberately provoking Palestine by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It is the anger and frustration of the Palestinians and their sympathizers that cause them to resort to what we call terrorism.

Attempting to arouse more friction between Palestinians and Jews, he argued that the creation of the Israeli state is the “root cause” of Islamic terrorism.

The majority of countries at the U.N. are pro-Palestine.