Obama-Haters' Rhetoric and Media Responsibility

July 5, 2014, 6:00 a.m.

The Hatred That Blinds and the "Socialism" of "Alinsky-Trained Obama"

In summary, I believe there are many significant issues surrounding this incident in which an Obama-haters' email goes viral, is unacknowledged as the basis for a letter to the editor of a hard copy mainstream newspaper, and published by that paper. I do not believe that many of those most serious issues have even been recognized, let alone addressed satisfactorily, by either the Editor's note or the reply letter the paper chose to publish. -- Nicholas Johnson

In "Snopes, Popes and Presidents," Dec. 26, 2013, there's a discussion of the human quality sometimes called "believing is seeing." That is, "what we believe, or want to believe, can have a significant influence on what we perceive." It goes both ways. In that blog essay are examples of how fans of Pope Francis (including me) are as inclined to believe untrue flattering stories about the Pope, as President Obama haters are to believe untrue assertions about him.

Earlier this week The Gazette provided an illustration of the latter in the form of its leading letter to the Editor, prominently displayed above the fold with the headline, "Obama Has Created a Socialist State," July 1, 2014, p. A5. There is no link to provide you because The Gazette, understandably, given the quantity of letters it apparently received pointing out the letter writer's, and its, error, has removed it from its online collection of letters. (In the paper's email to me it noted, "We have received several letters in regard to that particular letter.") Going to the original link provides the message, "Couldn't find mapping for /subject/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/obama-has-created-a-socialist-state-20140630 and no default error page!" (exclamation point in error message).

To build his case against President Obama, the letter writer simply reproduced from an untrue Obama haters' email, viral since January, what the letter writer falsely asserted were Saul Alinsky's "eight steps required to create a socialist state." He concluded his letter, "Does any of the above sound remotely familiar? President Obama, who is a former community organizer and an Alinsky devotee, vowed to 'fundamentally change America.' Hillary Clinton wrote her master's thesis on this book. This is who they really are." [Support for Romney quote: Neil King, Jr., "Mitt Romney's Dad Was an Alinsky Follower," The Wall Street Journal, January 24, 2012 -- plus numerous other references from a Google search.]

Today, July 5, The Gazette has published one of those "several letters" responding to the anti-Obama letter, along with a statement from the Editor. Both the letter writer, and The Gazette have, in my opinion, missed many of the issues raised by this incident -- as well as their seriousness. Rather than further lengthen this introduction, however, I have posted my additional commentary of nine serious categories of unaddressed issues at the bottom of this blog essay.

Because the paper chose not to publish my letter, I also reproduce it, immediately below, followed by the original letter, the letter in response the paper published, and the Editor's statement, so that you can judge the matter for yourself.

Saul Alinsky and President Obama
Nicholas Johnson
July 2, 2014
In a 1988 vice presidential candidate debate, when Senator Dan Quayle compared himself to President Kennedy, Senator Lloyd Bentsen responded, “I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

A memory of that exchange prompted my reaction to Joe Gantner’s letter [July 1] -- Gantner’s attempt to link President Obama to community organizer Saul Alinsky and Alinsky “quotes” Gantner alleges reveal Obama’s socialist goals.

“I knew Saul Alinsky. Saul Alinsky was a friend of mine. And believe me, Sir, Saul Alinsky never wrote the words with which you have libeled him” -– along with President Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Nor could Obama have received much mentoring from Alinsky, since Obama was only 10 years old when Alinksy died. In fact, during a conversation I once had with candidate Obama about community organizing, neither of us even mentioned Alinsky’s name.

Some emotionally driven Obama haters are so convinced of their correctness they are willing to believe, and send on to others as true, any email they receive regarding our “Muslim, socialist, Kenyan, imperial” president.

As Snopes reveals, that’s apparently what Gantner has done – and now the Gazette has published. See, "How to Create a Social State; Claim: List reproduces Saul Alinsky's rules for 'How to Create a Social State.'/FALSE," January 2014, and “Snopes, Popes and Presidents,” http://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2013/12/snopes-popes-and-presidents.html.

Finally, the Obama haters should be a little more cautious about their demonizing “community organizing.” It’s just another description of democracy, involving techniques millions have used since our nation’s birth, including both the Tea Party and Occupy movements during this century.

Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City
_______________
Obama Has Created a Socialist State
Joe Gantner
The Gazette, July 1, 2014, p. A5
Saul Alinsky, considered the founder of community organizing, was the author of “Rules for Radicals.”

In that book he outlined the eight steps required to create a socialist state.

o Control health care and you control the populace.

o Increase the poverty level as high as possible as poor people are much easier to control and are unlikely to fight back when their basic necessities are provided for.

o Increase the national debt to an unsustainable level in order to increase taxes and create even more poverty.

o Control guns so the people cannot defend themselves from the government. This facilitates the creation of a police state.

o Create a welfare system to control every aspect of life — food, housing, income.

o Craft the educational system to indoctrinate the children with the state’s agenda.

o Remove belief in God from the government and schools.

o Divide the people into wealthy and poor classes to cause more discontent. Tax the wealthy with the support of the poor.

Does any of the above sound remotely familiar?

President Obama, who is a former community organizer and an Alinsky devotee, vowed to “fundamentally change America.” Hillary Clinton wrote her master’s thesis on this book.

This is who they really are.

Joe Gantner
Cedar Rapids
_______________
Guidelines Should Be Taken Seriously"
Terry Heller
The Gazette, July 5, 2014, p. A5
[Currently available online at http://thegazette.com/subject/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/guidelines-should-be-taken-seriously-20140704.]

I think authors should be embarrassed after they place their names under email circulated screeds presented as letters to the editor, as did the writer of “Obama has created a socialist state” (July 1 by Joe Gantner).

The letter supposedly reveals the secret truth about President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

One can find a description and analysis of this letter at Snopes.com: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/alinsky.asp, which rates its claims as false.

According to Snopes.com, it is false that Saul Alinsky wrote the eight “steps” to socialism in the letter.

Also, it is false that Hillary Clinton wrote her graduate master’s thesis on Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.” She did not pursue a master’s degree; but she did write an undergraduate “senior thesis” on Alinsky (without mentioning “Rules for Radicals”) at Wellesley College: see Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_senior_thesis.

While the Wikipedia story is not especially flattering to Clinton, it skewers the absurdity that the thesis shows she is a secret Marxist. A link to the text of her thesis appears in the Snopes.com story.

The Gazette letter guidelines say that the author vouches for the originality of the letter. Surely authors ought to be able to take this guideline seriously. Who wants to shout out that one is a plagiarist before one’s whole community? And who wants to be known for plagiarizing lies?

Terry Heller
Cedar Rapids
_______________
Editor's Note
The Gazette
July 5, 2014, p. A5
Our letters policies have been to rely on authors to vouch for the originality of their work and agree to give us the right to edit for length, redundancy, clarity, civility and accuracy.

We'll be reviewing those policies and our fact-checking procedures over the next week to make sure we are offering the broadest possible forum for diverse viewpoints without facilitating the spread of inaccuracies and rumor. We welcome your ideas: editorial@thegazette.com; (319) 398-8262.

_______________
Nicholas Johnson's Additional Commentary on the Issues Raised by This Incident
Plagiarism. The Gazette's choice of a letter of response suggests the paper agrees with the writer that the primary problem here is one of plagiarism ("I think authors should be embarrassed after they place their names under email circulated screeds presented as letters to the editor . . .. Who wants to shout out that one is a plagiarist before one’s whole community?"). The Gazette's "Editor's note" begins, "Our letters policies have been to rely on authors to vouch for the originality of their work . . .."

Yes, I suppose there are potential copyright and plagiarism issues involved whenever one passes on as one's original work the hate speech, pornography, defamation, national security secrets, private facts, or false and misleading advertising actually created by another. But isn't it a bit duplicitous and disingenuous to focus on the whisper of plagiarism when the bellow of the elephant in the room involves the content of the speech?

When believing is seeing. There is a phenomenon here, well worth analysis and commentary in its own right, that both the responding letter and Editor's note totally ignore. One of the consequences of the divisiveness in our culture and current political climate -- that clearly seems to be present in this instance -- is that the more emotionally attached we are to a given ideological, political, or religious position, the more likely it is that we will fall victim to accepting as true anything that supports our predispositions. As I pointed out in "Snopes, Popes and Presidents," Dec. 26, 2013, this affliction is not limited to the Obama-haters of the radical right -- nor haters generally. Lovers -- whether of ideologies, individuals, or geographical places -- suffer from it as well.

Digital media's audience. During an FCC commissioner term, I titled a book How to Talk Back to Your Television Set. The title was arresting because in the late 1960s it was impossible to talk back to your television set in any sense (beyond sending postal letters to the networks and FCC that were almost always ignored). Today the combination of the Internet and digitization not only permit talking back to the media, but creating one's own media (as with this blog), along with an economic body blow to the 20th Century media industries: book, magazine and newspaper; movie, television and radio; and recording. The Gazette, like many other newspapers still, used to see the value of reader interaction in the form of online public comments connected to its news and opinion pieces. The Gazette appears to have changed its mind about that some time ago -- along with abandoning its Sunday feature, "Blogspot," reproducing in hard copy excerpts from the writing of some local bloggers. While these seem self-defeating decisions, when newspapers need more readers as well as advertisers, I acknowledge that the Gazette, as a business, is run by folks with a lot more experience and knowledge of the newspaper industry than I'll ever have.

Volume of haters' false and unverified emails.

From time to time our normally responsible Republican friends (yes, we do have Republican friends) will send us emails analogous to the one involved here -- wild charges about President Obama that, on their face, raise suspicions as to their possible accuracy. We routinely check them on Snopes. Because such emails are distributed widely, and hang around for a long time, almost always they have been investigated by Snopes and found to be false. Sometimes we send the Snopes' report to our friends, other times we just let it slide. This is one of the downsides of digitization and "everyone their own publisher" -- along with the damage from easily spread defamation, online bullying that sometimes leads to teens' suicides, a variety of offensive speech, and misinformation. With over 1000 blog essays, have I sometimes been guilty? I'd hope not; but I wouldn't be surprised if someone could find factual errors somewhere in there. On balance, I'd rather have such open media than not. But there is a downside, and we all need to make greater effort to check our facts and those of others, and help clean up the Internet in general.

Socialism. Our political economy is a blend of models -- part capitalist, part socialist, and part fascist (in the sense of an interweaving of government and for-profit enterprise, one that takes the form of individual-corporation-benefiting tax breaks and earmarks at the federal level, and the transfer of taxpayers' money to the bottom line of for-profit enterprises by way of TIFs at the local level). Schools, parks, libraries, the Interstate highway system and other roads, bridges and many communities' water systems are "socialist" -- and happily supported by most Americans. So it's both inaccurate and a little silly to rail against "socialism," and label as "socialist," any program or proposal you don't like. The "universal single-payer" healthcare available to all citizens in most of the largest industrialized nations -- and that takes the form of Medicare and Veterans' healthcare in this country -- can be characterized as "socialist." The Affordable Healthcare Act ("Obamacare") cannot; it is a health insurance system, not a health care system, with ever-increasing profits and administrative costs (not present in Medicare) as a result of for-profit insurance companies, hospitals, and doctors. That doesn't mean you have to like it, but it does mean it's not very accurate to describe it as "socialism."

Community organizing. As noted in my submitted but unpublished letter to the editor of The Gazette, "community organizing" is "just another description of democracy, involving techniques millions have used since our nation’s birth, including both the Tea Party and Occupy movements during this century." It makes no more sense to demonize community organizing and community organizers than it makes to demonize socialism. It simply involves the study, design, and utilization of strategies by which neighborhoods, or other groups of individual citizens, can more effectively present their grievances and proposals to governments (or other institutions) disproportionately representative of powerful economic or other special interest forces.

Saul Alinsky. That George Romney spent time with Saul Alinsky, and would say of him (as quoted in the photo near the top of this blog essay), "I think you ought to listen to Alinsky. It seems to me that we are always talking to the same people. Maybe the time has come to hear new voices," should provide some indication that his work is more well regarded by reasonable people than the Alinsky-haters would have you believe.

"Actual malice" and media responsibility. This is neither the time or place for a lengthy explanation of defamation. To say to others, something about someone, that is false, and detrimental to their reputation, in their community, is defamation ("libel" if written, "slander" if spoken). It is a "tort" for which damages may be awarded. Saul Alinsky (now deceased), President Obama, and Hillary Clinton could have made a preliminary case of having been libeled by this email, and now published "letter." The one complication is that, as "public officials" and "public figures" the Supreme Court decided in the New York Times v. Sullivan case that they would not have the rights of ordinary citizens. They would have to meet the higher standard of "actual malice" against those who wrote and distributed the email, the letter writer, and The Gazette. So what is "actual malice"? It is legal shorthand for the defendant speaker or publisher either (a) knowing that what they were saying was false, or (b) with "reckless disregard" of whether or not it might be false. The mere fact one is merely repeating something that someone else has said is no defense; as the saying has it, "the repetition of a libel is a libel."

All of this discussion is not to suggest there is any significant chance that the letter writer or The Gazette is likely to be sued by President Obama or Hillary Clinton. That's not the point. My point is simply that what has happened here is a serious breach of (I believe) legal, and certainly cultural, standards. It's "not nice" to say untrue things about another that will harm their reputation and thereby have an adverse impact on their business, profession, or political prospects.

When obstruction and false accusations become treason. In "When Obstruction Becomes Treason; There Are Many Ways to Bring Down a Government," I explore the question of whether there should be limits to the extent to which the citizens of a democracy can legally and appropriately try to prevent their government from functioning, otherwise disparage and bring it and its leaders down. I won't repeat that discussion here, but it is another issue involved in this incident -- which you can read about there if you are interested.

In summary, I believe there are many significant issues surrounding this incident in which an Obama-haters' email goes viral, is used as a basis for a letter to the editor of a hard copy mainstream newspaper, and published by that paper. I do not believe that many of those most serious issues have even been recognized, let alone addressed satisfactorily, by either the Editor's note or the reply letter the paper chose to publish.
# # #

TIF Apology

March 18, 2014, 7:20 a.m.

Note: And see "Addendum: If North Dakota Can Prosper from a State-Owned Bank, Why Not Iowa?" at the bottom of this blog essay/op ed column; and "TIFs: Too Many Negatives," March 25, 2014.

Note: The following was submitted to the Iowa City Press-Citizen with the headline, "TIF Apology," and was published this morning with the headline below. That headline's use of the word "transparency" is somewhat misleading. The column is not calling for governments to be more forthcoming and transparent regarding the details of their gifts to for-profit enterprises under the current system. [See, e.g., "TIFs: Too Many Negatives," March 25, 2014.] It is calling for a different system, a recognition of the reality that ours is a blended corporate-government economy, one that should substitute investments by taxpayers for what are now simply gifts. Taxpayers should get an ownership share, and a return on their investments. (The hard copy version also had a link to a nonexistent site. As reproduced in this blog essay the link is correct.) -- N.J. [Photo credit: Patrick McDonough.]

TIF: If You Can't Beat 'Em, Insist on More Transparency
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen
March 18, 2014, p. A7
I now realize that the dozens of my columns and blog essays over the years, itemizing in detail the evils of TIFs, grew out of a faulty premise.

It is not easy to admit a mistake, especially when one has made it so often. But you are owed that admission – along with a fuller explanation.

We’ve heard that “seeing is believing.” However, it is also true that “believing is seeing.” And what my upbringing and early education imbedded in my brain was a belief that colored my vision like the rainbow from a prism in the sun.

And what was that belief? It was that we have a capitalist, free private enterprise, market economy. Oh, sure, we had socialist enterprise as well: the Interstate highway system, national and state parks, libraries, public schools and universities. But business did business and government did government.

Now comes the realization that what I once saw so clearly was but a child of the ignorance born of ideology. It was the believing that made possible my seeing -- like the lines from the poem, “Last night I saw upon the stair/A little man who wasn't there.” (Hughes Mearns, 1899.)

I was believing in, and seeing, an economy that wasn’t there.

That’s why TIFs were seen to be an aberration, a cancer simultaneously attacking both capitalism’s foundation and taxpayers’ pocketbooks. (For numerous links to sources, see “TIFs: Links to Blog Essays,” http://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2014/03/tifs-links-to-blog-essays.html.)

Like "Amazing Grace," I was blind, but now I see: We don’t have a capitalist system. We probably never did.

So how should we describe our economy? The word “fascism” carries too much baggage from World War II -- dictators, suppression of opposition, aggressive nationalism, and even racism. “Fascism” doesn’t describe America today. But from Washington, D.C., to cities, counties and states all across America, in terms of an economy, ours is the economy of fascism.

The more acceptable word today, “corporatism,” is less accurate. Because the economy we have is a blend, more resembling a purée than a salad or a stew with identifiable ingredients.

Cities’ taxpayers who cannot afford the tickets to an NFL, or even college football game, invest billions in stadiums, given as gifts to attract the billionaires who own teams of millionaires.

States have multiple funds of taxpayers’ money used to compete with other states by giving it away to attract businesses.

Washington is essentially an open bazaar, awash in money gladly given and generously rewarded.

Is this system corrupt? Of course. Welcome to the real world. All economic systems can have corruption – communist, socialist, capitalist, or our fascist.

Is our fascist economy less efficient than a true capitalist economy? Absolutely. Everybody is handling other peoples’ money. Is it less humane than a socialist system might be? Of course. When it comes to minimum wages or safer working conditions, our fascist economy is still driven by the character Gordon Gekko’s belief, in the movie "Wall Street," that “Greed is good.”

Folks, in the words Walter Cronkite used to sign off the CBS Evening News, “And that’s the way it is.” That’s the system we have. Get used to it. The beneficiaries love it. The victims don’t revolt.

What can we do? Tweak the system. Insist our governments invest our money rather than giving it away; that they take a share of the ownership – and the profits. Insist on detailed accounting of the return on our money they’re investing.

If a fascist economy is wrong, but intractable, we can at least try, as John Carver bemoans in another context, to “do the wrong thing better.”
_______________
Nicholas Johnson maintains the website www.nicholasjohnson.org and blog http://FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.

_______________
Addendum: If North Dakota Can Prosper from a State-Owned Bank, Why Not Iowa?
It only makes sense, so long as we're committed to a fascist economy, that we should try -- as the last line of the op ed column suggests -- "to do the wrong thing better."

One of the most obvious positive tweaks to our fascist economic system would be for governments to enter the banking business. (a) Instead of putting such balances as cities, counties and states have into commercial banks, or credit unions, they could earn more on our money by doing the banking themselves. (b) As a part of a proposal that financial aid to business favor loans over gifts (or what would hopefully become "investments" earning a return) the governmental unit could make loans to the favored businesses from the government's own bank.

Think this is a crazy idea? Think again. It's a fascist economy that's the crazy idea. City, county and state-owned banks are a big improvement over what we have, in our effort to do this "wrong thing better."

But who would ever do such a thing? How could you ever find a government willing to take on its local, commercial bankers?

Take a look at North Dakota: Robb Manelbaum, "What North Dakota’s Public Bank Does for Small Businesses," New York Times, March 13, 2014

North Dakota uses the bank to funnel deposits from state agencies back into the state’s economy through . . . loans, teaming with local private banks that initiate the transactions with borrowers. The state-owned bank typically takes half of a business loan, and the interest rate on the state-lent portion is normally one or two percentage points below the market rate.

In January, the Bank of North Dakota played a bit part in an ideological skirmish in the blogosphere after a young activist, Jesse A. Myerson, suggested putting a public bank in every state as one of “Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For.” The piece led to some interesting discussions, including this response that Mr. Myerson’s suggestions were actually conservative reforms — and that the state-owned bank was responsible for there being more small-business loans in North Dakota than in neighboring states. . . .

[P]ublic banking advocates point most hopefully to efforts in Vermont. Last week, 15 Vermont towns passed resolutions urging the state legislature to establish a public bank. It could be very beneficial to the small community banks and the state. Even big cities could do this . . ..

North Dakota, Vermont -- why not a "City of Iowa City Fascist Economy Public Bank"? How about it Councillors? # # #

Snopes, Popes, and Presidents

December 26, 2013 2:45 p.m.

Believing is Seeing
We can learn more from some recent reports of Pope Francis' activities than what appear to be this Pope's quite sincere concerns and commitments to improving the lot of the poor, and those adversely affected by the consequences of war. Consider the following:

"Pope Francis, celebrating his first Christmas as Roman Catholic leader, on Wednesday [Dec. 25] called on atheists to unite with believers of all religions and work for 'a homemade peace' that can spread across the world. . . . He said that people of other religions were also praying for peace, and - departing from his prepared text - he urged atheists to join forces with believers. 'I invite even non-believers to desire peace. (Join us) with your desire, a desire that widens the heart. Let us all unite, either with prayer or with desire, but everyone, for peace, he said, drawing sustained applause from the crowd.'"
__________
"Pope Francis washed and kissed the feet of a dozen inmates at a juvenile detention center in a Holy Thursday ritual that he celebrated for years as archbishop and is continuing now that he is pope. Two of the 12 were young women . . .."
__________
"Pope Francis announc[ed] that . . . 'the time has come to abandon all intolerance. . . . Even atheists acknowledge the divine. . . . The church no longer believes in a literal hell where people suffer. . . . All religions are true, because they are true in the hearts of all those who believe in them. . . . Our church is big enough for heterosexuals and homosexuals, for the pro-life and the pro-choice! For conservatives and liberals, even communists are welcome and have joined us. We all love and worship the same God. . . . [I]t is my hope that we will have a woman pope one day. . . . Racism today is the ultimate evil in the world. . . . [T]hose who would dare to turn immigrants away, be they legal or undocumented, turn their backs on Christ himself! . . . [B]ecause Muslims, Hindus and African Animists are also made in the very likeness and image of God, to . . . reject them to is to reject God and the Gospel of Christ.'"
__________
"Three homeless men [who] live on the street in the Rome neighborhood just outside the Vatican's walls . . . helped Pope Francis celebrate his 77th birthday Tuesday [Dec. 24] [when they] were invited . . . to attend the Mass, which Francis celebrates daily at the hotel where he lives on Vatican City grounds. [He] also invited his household help to join him in a 'family-like' atmosphere, and he spoke of them one by one during his homily."
__________
In an interview with uCatholic, Archbishop Konrad Krajewski, who serves as 'Almoner of His Holiness,' implied that Pope Francis may be sneaking out of the Vatican at night to personally give money and food to the homeless citizens of Rome. . . . [Krajewski commented} that Francis used to do exactly that as archbishop of Buenos Aires, before he was elected pope. . . . 'As archbishop of Buenos Aires, when he was known as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the future pontiff would go out at night ... to find people, talk with them, or buy them something to eat. He would sit with them and eat with them on the street.' . . . [A]n anonymous source in the church [said] that 'Swiss guards confirmed that the pope has ventured out at night, dressed as a regular priest, to meet with homeless men and women.'”
__________

A Pope, any Pope, is in many ways one of our few world leaders who is given -- or can simply seize -- an ability to speak his or her mind, not only, in Pope Francis' case, to his 1.2 billion followers, but to more billions beyond. When he chooses to use that opportunity to address problems of poverty, inequality and greed, war and peace, appealing to our better angels, he can provide a moral and ethical beacon for all of humankind. And because he communicates primarily, or at least as much, by his actions as by his words, he truly has our attention. (I will leave for another day Church positions he has neither addressed nor given any indication of a likelihood to change.) So, yeah, I'm a fan.

So what more can we learn from these stories beyond what they tell us regarding the character and style of this Pope?

They tell us something about the extent to which "believing is seeing;" that is, what we believe, or want to believe, can have a significant influence on what we perceive.

For Pope Francis fans, like myself, each of those quotations, above, all taken from published sources, has an air of plausibility about it. What he has done so far on behalf of the poor, peace, and opening up the Church has been so mind altering that nothing someone claims he has done seems impossible in that context.

But, alas, two of those five reports are false.

If you haven't already guessed which ones they are, they are repeated at the bottom of this blog essay with their sources and rebuttals.

Snopes.com is a wonderful online service for checking the truth of the "urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation" that circle the global Internet each day. It was particularly useful when the anti-President-Obama forces were circulating false accusations regarding his faith, American citizenship, and anything else they could come up with. See, "Snopes and 'What We Know That Ain't So,'" Aug. 2, 2012.

Our Republican friends (yes, we have some) would pass such charges along to their e-mailing lists, believing any bad news about Obama as readily as I believe any inspiring news about Pope Francis. We'd usually check them out with Snopes, and like as not find that they were totally false. Sometimes we'd refer the sending party to the Snopes report, and other times we'd decide it was hopeless.

But the point is not about Republican assaults on our President. The point is that we're all subject to such manipulation. There is some research and data on this. Even those trained and working in the sciences are significantly more likely to make accurate mathematical calculations when the data supports their hypotheses than when it does not.

What this Pope and Snopes have shown me is that the manipulation we experience from our religious, political and ideological beliefs and convictions is not limited to our disinclination to critically evaluate assertions regarding people and things that we hate. They can also manipulate our judgment when evaluating positive assertions about the people and things we love or admire.

Now here is what Paul Harvey would have called, "the rest of the story."

__________

"Pope Francis, celebrating his first Christmas as Roman Catholic leader, on Wednesday [Dec. 25] called on atheists to unite with believers of all religions and work for 'a homemade peace' that can spread across the world. . . . He said that people of other religions were also praying for peace, and - departing from his prepared text - he urged atheists to join forces with believers. 'I invite even non-believers to desire peace. (Join us) with your desire, a desire that widens the heart. Let us all unite, either with prayer or with desire, but everyone, for peace, he said, drawing sustained applause from the crowd.'"

-- Philip Pullella, "Atheists, work with us for peace, Pope says on Christmas," Reuters/The Gazette, Dec. 26, 2013, p. A4. There is some question as to what the Pope actually said, from the prepared text and during extemporaneous remarks, and even more question as to what he meant. But this is a relatively accurate story.
__________
"Pope Francis washed and kissed the feet of a dozen inmates at a juvenile detention center in a Holy Thursday ritual that he celebrated for years as archbishop and is continuing now that he is pope. Two of the 12 were young women . . .."

-- Nicole Winfield,"Pope Francis washes feet of young detainees in ritual," AP/USA Today, March 28, 2013. This story seems to be entirely true.
__________
"Pope Francis announc[ed] that . . . 'the time has come to abandon all intolerance. . . . Even atheists acknowledge the divine. . . . The church no longer believes in a literal hell where people suffer. . . . All religions are true, because they are true in the hearts of all those who believe in them. . . . Our church is big enough for heterosexuals and homosexuals, for the pro-life and the pro-choice! For conservatives and liberals, even communists are welcome and have joined us. We all love and worship the same God. . . . [I]t is my hope that we will have a woman pope one day. . . . Racism today is the ultimate evil in the world. . . . [T]hose who would dare to turn immigrants away, be they legal or undocumented, turn their backs on Christ himself! . . . [B]ecause Muslims, Hindus and African Animists are also made in the very likeness and image of God, to . . . reject them to is to reject God and the Gospel of Christ.'"

-- The quote is taken from, "Pope Francis Condemns Racism And Declares That 'All Religions Are True,'” Diversity Chronicle, Dec. 5, 2013. This story, which went viral around the Internet, is false. See, "Pope Francis Declares All Religions Are True," Snopes.com, Dec. 22, 2013.
__________

"Three homeless men [who] live on the street in the Rome neighborhood just outside the Vatican's walls . . . helped Pope Francis celebrate his 77th birthday Tuesday [Dec. 24] [when they] were invited . . . to attend the Mass, which Francis celebrates daily at the hotel where he lives on Vatican City grounds. [He] also invited his household help to join him in a 'family-like' atmosphere, and he spoke of them one by one during his homily."

-- Frances D'Emilio, "Pope shares his birthday breakfast with homeless," Associated Press, Dec. 17, 2013. This appears to be a true story, unless the three men in this photo who are not the Pope are just actors. [Photo credit: L'Osservatore Romano, The Vatican.]
__________
In an interview with uCatholic, Archbishop Konrad Krajewski, who serves as 'Almoner of His Holiness,' implied that Pope Francis may be sneaking out of the Vatican at night to personally give money and food to the homeless citizens of Rome. . . . [Krajewski commented} that Francis used to do exactly that as archbishop of Buenos Aires, before he was elected pope. . . . 'As archbishop of Buenos Aires, when he was known as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the future pontiff would go out at night ... to find people, talk with them, or buy them something to eat. He would sit with them and eat with them on the street.' . . . [A]n anonymous source in the church [said] that 'Swiss guards confirmed that the pope has ventured out at night, dressed as a regular priest, to meet with homeless men and women.'”

-- Eric Brown, "Is Pope Francis Sneaking Out Of The Vatican At Night To Give Money To The Homeless?," International Business Times," Dec. 3, 2013. It certainly sounds like it might be true. But see, David Gibson, "Pope Francis sneaks out of the Vatican? Maybe not, but he wouldn’t be the first," Religion News Service, Dec. 3, 2013 ("Vatican officials say reports that Pope Francis has been slipping out at night to visit the homeless in Rome are 'simply not true,' though that hasn’t stopped the stories from capturing the public imagination. That’s probably because such tales seem right in line with Francis’ unconventional and pastoral style.")

And that last line is the point of this blog essay.

# # #