"The X Games broadcast in all 50 states, 175 countries and more than 380 million homes. Its international reach and recognition makes the Democratic National Convention, which broadcast in about 22 million homes its first night, seem like a church luncheon."
WOW...what a reach. Just because ESPN is available in 380 million homes doesn't mean it was watched. A simple web search shows 2012 winter X games averaged 900k homes with a peak rating of 1.4. The 2012 Summer X games had 38 million viewers...Total. That includes 29 hours of live broadcasting and countless repeats.
Thanks for pointing that out, Armando. I'll make the correction! - Ana McKenzie, news editor
Dr Stein's presence and that of her running mate Cheri Honkala in the 2012 campaign was vitally important. The very fact Stein chose Honkala put poverty and homelessness on the electoral map, given nearly one third of the US population is in one camp or the other. That was guts. Stein gave many people hope where they had given up. Many never heard of her because most commercial newsmedia didn't cover third parties. As soon as they heard about her positions, their heads turned immediately and they were heartened -- that's the word they used most often -- heartened. They read interviews (like this one) where she explained her ideas amazingly clearly. Many were not pleased they live in a so-called "democracy" where commercial newsmedia only covered the two main party candidates who didn't even mention CLIMATE in the debates (climate was Jill Stein's main theme). We in the Green campaign functioned as a kind of “media” for Dr Stein. We're ready to do it again if she decides to run in 2016. Even if she doesn’t run, as a Harvard-educated medical doctor she’ll be on hand to rebut Obamacare and explain how we can salvage what will likely be a disaster by shifting to Medicare for All (single payer).
I want to see Dr Stein as a guest on the Rachel Maddow show. My sense is that Rachel failed to let her on her show in 2012 in order to protect Pres Obama from Jill's critique. That critique will continue with Hillary (or whoever picks up Obama's white flag). Jill Stein is the natural opponent to the entire "moderate" (corporate) Democratic Party line. She is doing a profound public service.
Jill was inspiring during her Friday speech in Charlotte. Check out the Green Party at www.charlottegreens.org
Jill Stein is fantastic! I hope she runs again in 2016, and that she will be on the ballot in North Carolina. Thanks to Joanne Spataro and Creative Loafing for this article.
Can't wait for the premiere!!!
Great article, thanks for the feature. For the record, Luis' wife, while undocumented, is not in deportation proceedings.
The magnificent Jill Stein provides thoughtful solutions to the enormous problems facing humanity at this time. How is it that she is not yet at the helm.
This is way cool! Thank you for exploring this topic!
You forgot one of the classics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA1hyqA6UTY
If you believe that a person convicted of a crime should never again be allowed to be gainfully employed, why are you surprised when they turn to crime to support themselves? Who did you expect to support them?
It's easy to issue sanctimonious proclamationsns when you don't think things through, isn't it?
Hold on, you mean there are consequences to getting caught committing a crime? Will wonders never cease?
Businesses have a right to hire and not hire whoever they want, asking the government to step in on behalf of criminals is absolutely ludicrous.
Take this story to local high schools and let kids know that crime pays you immediately and if you get caught, you spend the rest of your life paying it back.
"If any other demographic group was being targeted and slaughtered at this rate, people would be up in arms." said Julie Owens. Four out of five murder victims in the USA are men. No one seems very concerned.
You may be right that I'm splitting hairs there. That part read in a misleading way to me (i.e. painting the bishops as "right-wing" re: the healthcare plan), but I may just be overly sensitive as those things go. I don't see that "subtext" in the CDF quote, though, and still think your description is inaccurate.
As for my "regard" for the episcopate, I do consider the bishops to have an indispensable doctrinal role of authority (as taught solemnly many times by the Church, including Vatican II), and that's why it's especially important to me to see their (often, I think, quite intelligent) contributions re: moral issues accurately represented. That doesn't mean they are going to be right on every political issue, granted-- and it *certainly* doesn't mean they're all going to be moral and responsible (what little I know of the sex abuse scandal shows that too well). So I can respect fair-minded criticism, and you are probably right I would sympathize more with you if I had more experience of frustrating dealings with authority. (And I'm glad to hear you're coming at this from a Catholic perspective.) However, I think respect for the teaching office of the bishops is kinda part of the Catholic deal, even in those cases where bishops may not personally merit much or any respect.
No, I'm sorry, Daniel, but the bishops opposed Obamacare; if it was because of abortion or something else entirely, it's irrelevant in terms of the politics of the situation -- they did officially oppose it. I think you're trying to cut hairs a little too finely there. Also, I didn't mean to criticize US bishops for getting mad at the nuns "for caring too much about the poor." It's more trivial on their part than that. It's well known that the bishops were furious that the nuns gave the Obama administration "political cover" with Catholics regarding Obamacare, thus interfering with the bishops' assumed authority over the nuns. My opinion is that it was high time for their self-regard to be knocked down a notch or two.
As for the quote from the CDF, it certainly includes a strong implication that since the nuns did not spend enough time on issues of abortion and homosexuality, they thus spent too much time on the social justice issues. That's simply how the quoted CDF paragraph reads to anyone paying attention to the subtext.
One more note: I've been a Catholic -- I admit, off and on at times -- for nearly 60 years, since the pre-Vatican II days, and I've seen it all. A lifetime of experience of observing and dealing with the Catholic hierarchy, including of course the bishops, leaves me with less -- much less -- trust in their inherent "authority," never mind wisdom, than you seem to have. That perspective comes out in my columns that regard the Church. You seem intelligent and forthright, and I suggest to you that a lifetime of honest observation and freedom of thought (America and all that, you know) will temper your regard for the church's "bosses," believe me.
I appreciate the response, John. You are right that the bishops opposed the passing of the healthcare bill, and I should have been more precise. The article you link to, though, seems to support my basic point-- the bishops' opposition was not about their views on healthcare in general, but *specifically* about the issue of abortion funding. Thus, though technically correct, it seems misleading, and tendentiously so, to suggest that the "doctrinal issues" the bishops raised with religious sisters were about disagreements over "healthcare" and the Obama administration plan, when really only abortion was at issue-- as the Hot Air article says, a great many bishops would have been highly sympathetic to the plan otherwise. As for your second point, I didn't claim the bishops didn't criticize the religious sisters for their attitudes toward Church doctrine. I think they were right to do so, but I have no problem with someone who disagrees with them criticizing what they actually said. What I objected to was the suggestion that they blamed the nuns for "focusing too much on poverty and economic justice," which is *not* an accurate summary of the quote you provided, and paints a deeply unfair picture of bishops who get mad at nuns for caring too much about the poor and suffering.
Thanks for your input, Daniel. Yes, the Catholic bishops DID oppose Obamacare and sent out a letter to Catholic churchgoers in March 2010 expressly saying so. Their opposition revolved around abortion funding, but they did, in fact, come out publicly in opposition to the entire package. Here's a link to information about their opposition: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/14/cath…
As for the CDF's assessment of the nuns' social justice work, the opening paragraph of the report did indeed compliment the US nuns on their work with the poor. Two paragraphs later, however, the harsh critiques began and continued until the end of the document. Here is a critical excerpt from page 3 of the report: ". . .while there has been a great deal of work on the part of LCWR promoting issues of social justice in harmony with the Church’s social doctrine, it is silent on the right to life from conception to natural death, a question that is part of the lively public debate about abortion and euthanasia in the United States. Further, issues of crucial importance to the life of Church and society, such as the Church’s Biblical view of family life and human sexuality, are not part of the LCWR agenda in a way that promotes Church teaching."
These are not "sketchy claims," as you called them. These are direct quotes from the bishops' document.
Where does the CDF assessment of the LCWR and Network criticize the groups for "focusing too much on poverty and social injustice"? The opening of the document *praises* the social justice work of the religious sisters. And did "the American bishops" really "oppose" the Obama administration's healthcare plan as a whole? I recall the bishops' responses being quite *sympathetic* to the overall aims of the plan, only criticizing issues of abortion funding and the contraception/abortifacients mandate. (These sketchy claims are all too typical of the polarized-politics approach to Catholic doctrine, which is inevitably reductive.)
This is blowing my mind. Ed was a good friend of mine. I was driving through LA in 1972 and Ed and his girlfriend, Lane, were the only people I knew in southern California. I pulled off the freeway on Sunset Boulevard to try to call him and the only Ed Dodson in the phonebook had died just before I called. It wasn't him (Edgar, instead of Edwin), so I drove out onto the freeway to drive up to SF and PULLED IN BEHIND HIM AND LANE IN HIS MGA! It still gives me chills to think about it. They took care of me because I had just had my heart broken by a girl I met in Grand Canyon whose mother spirited her away in the middle of the night. Ed and Lane took care of me. The girl later found me, but I lost contact with Ed the very next year. Wow. I am so sad I couldn't have talked to him before he died. The weirdest thing about this is that I have been writing a short story about this experience and just finished it when I found out about the movie and tracked down Lane, as well. Proof of a higher power in my humble opinion. God bless Ed Dodson!
Powered by Foundation