That's the only thing I can call Mark Stricherz's post on the Catholic Vote (formerly American Papist) blog entitled "Pro-Life Activists and the Politics of Resentment". He refers to the demonstrations staged against Todd Stave, one of the two owners (the the other being his sister) of the Germantown Reproductive Health Services baby-killing gulag in Germantown Maryland. From the text of this post, I take it that his sole source of information is the Washington Post. No one in their right minds holds that to be anything other than left-wing biased. I'd go so far as to say that the Post, more and more, is dropping all pretenses of impartiality.
I submitted a comment to that post yesterday afternoon. It doesn't appear. Funny - no comment of mine on that blog has been published. It's their blog so they can do whatever they wish but such suppression of my comment that does comply with their stated rules diminishes the respect that I might otherwise have for them. However, this is why this blog exists - so that the petulance of the Catholic Vote, Catholic Standard and others will not stifle voices of faithful Catholics who don't tow their lines. Below (in italics) is the comment that I submitted.
Need I remind you that the Post can hardly be called "reliable" and certainly should not be one's sole source of information? I must also take exception with your usage of the pejorative phrase "politics of resentment" when describing the pro-lifers.
If you think they “resent” something, just what do you think that is? It's not the landlord per se that they "resent" (your term, not mine). They are correctly upset that close to 1000 babies (to date, and counting) have been slaughtered at the Stave's place in Germantown. They might also be a tad miffed that while they are taking a stand (with incumbent risks) and showing the truth of Stave's activities (and Stave's assault of one of them was picked up on camcorder), "armchair-generals" wag their ever-so-superior fingers at them from the comfort and safety of their computer stands.
When I wrote that, I forgot to take Stricherz to task for describing what pro-lifers did as "threats". If his sole basis for that term is the Washington Post, I submit that he engaged in slander. Moreover, Stave's site, Voice For Choice, links to an interview he did with Rachel Maddow. I suggest that you watch it. Notice at the 1:55 mark that Stave had acknowledged that the calls received were "not threatening". That begs the question even more - where does Stricherz get the bright idea that the pro-life folks were "threatening" anybody? I never thought I'd see the day when I'd have to give Rachel Maddow kudos instead of a Catholic blogger. Yes, yes, I know her pro-baby-killing rants are an insult to the intelligence of the normal human being, but I do give the poor deluded dear credit where it's due.
Ostensibly Voice for Choice was started as a result of a demonstration during a parents' event at a school attended by Stave's daughter. I wrote about that before here. In that post I mentioned the assault on the pro-lifer allegedly committed by Stave himself. How peculiar that Stricherz doesn't see fit to mention it - but of course he wouldn't if he relied solely on the Washington Post. So much for "due diligence" research!
By the way - Defend Life's latest newsletter features an article about the pro-life efforts at the Germantown abortuary on pages 17-18. On page 18 you'll see a photo of some "Voice for Choice" groupies holding a picture of Jack Ames - with Ames himself having a chuckle over it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's disturbing. But it isn't the first time Mark has demonized prolifers with poppycock.
ReplyDeleteUPDATE! I checked Stricherz's post just now and my comment appears.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of a great story in New Mexico. A few years ago, the Albuquerque Planned Parenthood abortuary was trying to create a bubble-zone around its facility. For months, it told the City Council it had revelatory video footage proving how vicious and threatening pro-lifers were and therefore how necessary this zone of protection was.
ReplyDeleteFinally, the day of the hearing came and pro-lifers were tense with anxiety, wondering what on earth PP could have showing us in a bad light.
The video was professionally edited - very sharp. A dramatic frame comes up, boldly crying: "They scream at the women entering the clinic..." followed by several moments of video showing a sweet elderly gentleman offering a woman a Rosary. The entire City Council room - including the liberally-oriented - burst out laughing.
Yes, when one reads about those "threatening" pro-lifers, one needs to verify the story.
It is a very common practice for "Catholic bloggers" to post only those comments they endorse. We are slowly evolving into a kind of totalitariansim where everyone controls his or her reality by "moderating" comments and allowing only those things which a given blogger agrees with. It is frightening that should happen on a secular blog. It is particuarly disturbing that this happens all the time, and most especially so amongst the most highly profiled and visible of Catholic bloggers. Glad to see that your comment was posted.
ReplyDelete