Sacred and Profane
I'm pleased to once again run a column by my good friend, Mr. J. Robert
Wiskotzil, noted newspaper columnist, who once again employs his wisdom
and wit - this time towards the major media...
Enjoy.
If the left wing media doesn't like
you, not because of what you are but because you are not what they want
you to be: watch out.
It wouldn't surprise me if one of the
"mainstream media" talking heads said, "Take the Pope. Please." Why?
Because not one TV "pundit", liberal newspaper (yes, Virginia, there
are liberal rags) wanted Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to become Pope.
Again you ask why? Simple. In their tunnel-visioned eyes a Cardinal
from a Third World country should have been elevated to that office.
Not because any one of them would be better qualified, only because the
media feels the Vatican must join the world of multiculturalism.
Well, the best-qualified man won. And
the media doesn't like him. You keep asking why? Mainly because they
didn't pick him. In fact, one area newspaper was horrified that the
College of Cardinals met and elected the new pope IN SECRET!! Sorry
American press, the Vatican does not have any "sunshine" law on the
books. Thank God.
I've got news for the media, the
Cardinals have been electing popes in seclusion for over one thousand
years. But that doesn't stop the American press from inferring the
Vatican should let the press into the Sistine Chapel to report on every
movement each Cardinal makes. And, of course, attempt to influence the
outcome to the Cardinal of their choice.
I can see it now. TV lights all over
the Chapel (probably melting Michaelangelo's frescoes) so bright the
Cardinals have to wear sun glasses. And Bawa Walters pontificating in
her breathy voice to all of us, "This is thrilling folks. I am the
first non-Cardinal and, of course, non-man to be privileged to
take part, I mean, report live on the machinations and backbiting that
I hope will go on during the pope selection process. There better be or
we will all be bored to tears." Frankly, Bawa, we are already.
CLICK.
While the press keeps demonizing Pope
Benedict XVI for not being the pope they want, they are canonizing this
country's 20th Century Benedict Arnold, St. Jane Fonda. The media love
and fawn over her for what she is: the Hate America icon.
Every talk show host has bowed,
kowtowed and groveled before St. Jane. I heard a rumor that Jane let
Katie kiss her feet, but as I say, it's just a rumor. You must have
noticed that the liberal press (a redundancy) only talk to Jane about
her life with Ted, her fitness tapes, her first movie in 15 years (has
anyone really missed her?), never about her despicable and traitorous
behavior at home and in Vietnam for which she has never apologized. Her
crimes against our fighting men and women are well documented, so no
need to detail them here.
St. Jane hates capitalism, but she
sure wallows in luxury like a capitalist. She loathes her country, but
avails herself of all its freedoms. Freedoms she definitely could not
enjoy if her prayers in the following quote had been answered: on
November 22, 1969 in the Detroit Free Press: "I would think that if you
understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your
knees that we would someday become Communist."
She would be far better off praying
for forgiveness from those brave Vietnam vets she so proudly and
brutally betrayed over 35 years ago. We know the sacred pope would pray
for her soul. The profane press is probably praying for her to go to
Iraq. After all, "Jihad Jane" would sell lots of papers. Amen.
Mark D'Elicio
2 Comments
Reader Comments (2)
Sending our troops into an unjust, unprovoked war, misleading them and us as to their intent; failing to armor them properly and failing to take care of all of them upon their return is more criminal then any syllable uttered by Fonda. While it can be argued that President Bush is not directly accountable in every instance, it can also be argued that the Captain of a ship is responsible for the actions of his crew, and that the difference in accountability between a president and an actor should be at least as wide as the Grand Canyon. Again I don’t justify or condone what Jane Fonda did, I personally abhor it, but how can I not turn that same critical eye toward the current administration and the current “Vietnam?” And I’d be obligated to train that eye regardless of which Party was in power.
As for the Pope, outside of the editorial section, it was never my impression that the “liberal media” disapproved of him. It was my impression however that there was far too much coverage and too much sensationalizing of the events (of which both the liberal and conservative media are frequently guilty) while legitimate local and national news suffered. The lead story in most newspapers and news programs concerned the Pope’s death and the build up to his successor, and not 50 plus U.S. Troops and countless Coalition troops and Iraqis who died that month.
I think electing a new pope of color would have been a bold and forward-looking move for the Catholic Church but it is the least of my concerns. What does concern me is that the previous and current Pope have not done enough to address the Catholic scandals here at home (and possibly abroad), short of calling many back to the church, conducting investigations in secret, and giving one a prominent role in a recent Vatican function after the Pope’s death. And before I am painted as either anti-Catholic or anti-religion, I would raise the same red flag whether they were Atheist or Protestant.
Circling back to Jane Fonda, her recent notoriety will no doubt be short-lived, as the “liberal media” moves on to the next American Idol and Apprentice at the bereft of what is really important. By the way, where was the “liberal media” when it was hanging Clinton with a stained dress? No FOX News was required back then. Which brings to mind the question: Is the leaning of the media inversely proportional to the leaning of the administration in power at that time? Food for thought.