What’s the over/under on how long before Pat Robertson’s latest disingenuous apology for his latest absurd statement (that Haiti is “cursed” and invited the earthquake by making a pact with the Devil)? I wish he’d just admit he REALLY DOES BELIEVE this kooky, offensive bulls**t, instead of always staying dumb stuff and then pretending to be sorry.
Robertson would sh*t if he knew the real cause of the earthquake.
Oh noes!!! A “weather weopan“!!! Imagine the “devestation” that could be caused by these “secret weopans that are harboured within our world”!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!! FEAR!! FIRE!! FOES!! AWAKE!! PANIC!!!!!!!!!!! THE SEC IS A WAR!!!!!!
Oops, sorry, got carried away with my blog clichés there. But seriously, LOL.
I still don’t understand your irrational fear of the Securities and Exchance Commission, or have you been doing some insider trading like Martha???
Why should Pat Robertson apologize for expressing his beliefs and interpretations of the bible? The bible is about the most racist, misogynistic piece of literature outside of Mein Kampf in existence. The more proponents of the Bible, like Robertson, speak out, the more people might be educated by the fact that the Bible is not god’s word, and followers of the bible 1) haven’t read it, 2) haven’t read the unedited (for this generation) versions, or 3) are the same type of people as Robertson.
Was that over the top?
Sandy has also apparently not studied the Bible, which he probably believes was written on the fake moon landing set.
He has also apparently not read this post, since the whole point of it was that Robertson SHOULDN’T offer up empty appologies for saying stuff he believes.
Robertson shouldn’t apologize, and neither should Danny Glover.
Joe Mama, I can’t emphasize enough how much I despise the spinelessness of the equivalence of Danny Glover with Pat Robertson. Danny Glover is simply stupid; if indeed global warming was a contributing factor to the Haiti earthquake, I’m pretty sure the experts in the blogroll just to the right have no idea what that mechanism was, so one can be 100% sure that Glover would not have any clue what said mechanism was either. As a thinly veiled attempt to take a shot at the ‘Global Warming Sky-is-Falling’ crowd, with Glover-as-Strawman and Suffering-in-Haiti as the stick, that effort is pretty sad.
But Robertson. Holy Jesus. That guy is claiming that the Haitians freaking asked for it. Haiti. Poorest nation on the planet. A place where a staggering 1 out of 50 people has regular work. When Jesus was delivering the Sermon on the Mount, there was surely a picture of Haiti on the easel next to the podium.
And Robertson, a rare fellow who has earned a ton of material wealth for delivering not much of actual value, has the audacity to point a finger at the hopeless souls in Hades, er, Haiti, and claim that God, the Father of Jesus Christ, visited this on those “poor” Haitians, who apparently deserved not “the kingdom of heaven” – per the beatitudes – but actually untold further suffering, per what Jesus told Robertson.
I’m trying hard to stay away from ad hominems, but the Glover/Robertson equivalence is maddening, and has the whiff of some Fox News/Right Wing Radio asshole indelibly expressing how soulless and morally bankrupt they have become.
if indeed global warming was a contributing factor to the Haiti earthquake…
LOL…and if indeed the Haitians were asking for it…
Joe, do you actually read or pay attention to things that other people say when they don’t fit into your preferred ideological box?
Because it kind of doesn’t seem like it, sometimes.
Jazz made a whole bunch of substantive points, in the course of which he admitted that Glover’s comments were “stupid” and clueless, yet you somehow managed to take an out-of-context snippet that (in your rendering) makes Glover sound at least arguably reasonable — which manifestly wasn’t Jazz’s intent — and use it to suggest that, therefore, Robertson is likewise at least arguably reasonable. You then proceeded to blatantly ignore the larger significance of the snippet’s actual context to Jazz’s underlying point; disregard everything of substance that Jazz said; and vomit an irrelevant “LOL” into your keyboard, failing utterly to address any of the actual issues Jazz raised in his comment.
In short, why did you bother to respond at all? FAIL.
You’re full of it, Brendan. Jazz admitted that “Danny Glover is simply stupid” and then immediately, IN THE SAME FRIGGIN’ SENTENCE, went on to explain that if indeed global warming was a contributing factor to the Haiti earthquake, I’m pretty sure the experts in the blogroll just to the right have no idea what that mechanism was, so one can be 100% sure that Glover would not have any clue what said mechanism was either. In other words, according to Jazz, Glover is stupid not because he thinks global warming was a contributing factor to the earthquake, but merely because he wouldn’t be able to understand the mechanism behind it! That is absurd. Believing that global warming caused an earthquake is no less a matter of faith — and an outrageously stupid leap of faith at that — than Robertson’s retarded belief that the Haitians were asking for it. THAT was my clear and obvious point, which you somehow managed to ignore. If that is a FAIL, then the word has no meaning.
As for the “whole bunch of substantive points” and “factual issues” that Jazz made, I assume you’re talking about where he basically said Robertson is an ass. I didn’t ignore that, I just didn’t feel the need to verbalize my agreement with it. After all, Robertson’s asininity is not in dispute. If by chance, however, you’re talking about where Jazz said that I made “[a] thinly veiled attempt to take a shot at the ‘Global Warming Sky-is-Falling’ crowd, with Glover-as-Strawman and Suffering-in-Haiti as the stick” that “is pretty sad,” or where Jazz said that he’s “trying hard to stay away from ad hominems, but the Glover/Robertson equivalence is maddening, and has the whiff of some Fox News/Right Wing Radio asshole indelibly expressing how soulless and morally bankrupt they have become,” then needless to say we have vastly different views of what a “substantive point” and “factual issue” is.
Oh, and if vomiting irrelevancies is under discussion, then “your preferred ideological box” is a great example.
Brendan – on a scale of 1-10, isn’t your over-reaction in #9 about an 8 ?
That was a lot of typing considering that Joe Mama was responding to a comment about 2 different sets of religious beliefs …
Roberston is an idiot. We know that. OK – he’s a very smart guy who keeps sounding like an idiot, like Carter or Obama – or Clinton (tho Clinton had enough smarts not to sound like an idiot quite so often) …
From the fundamentalist evangelical perspective, any country where voudoun is part of the belief system of a significant part of the population is basically just asking for divine retribution … personally, I don’t agree … *you* don’t agree … so how come Joe Mama’s comment got under your skin so effectively ?
Robertson isn’t just an idiot Alasdair, he’s an idiot with a large following and large influence whose ideas are filled with hatred and malice towards other people. When someone like that is out there it is the duty of decent people to call him out for it, because silence just allows him to spread his disgusting message. (You can replace Robertson with any number of conservative leaders unfortunately).
Danny Glover? He’s an actor who doesn’t know what he’s really talking about, but his message isn’t hateful. There is no malice in it. His concern is with what we do to the earth and the consequences it can have, something that is a very real concern despite what people like you seem to be afraid of admiting. Can it cause earthquakes? No, it can’t, which is why what he said was stupid. But it doesn’t even begin to equate to what Robertson said.
Trying to equate the two, trying to claim they are even in the same neighborhood and deserving of the same response is a sign of irrationality and idiocy. Frankly you and Joe Mama are making Danny Glover look pretty smart with your responses.
Glover is stupid not because he thinks global warming was a contributing factor to the earthquake, but merely because he wouldn’t be able to understand the mechanism behind it! That is absurd.
Absurd? Not really. I was going to leave this point alone, as the equivalence between Robertson and Glover upsets me – follows a pattern of obfuscation, stupidity (and, perhaps, racism) that seems to characterize the Foxy News/Right Wing Radio era. I shouldn’t post when I’m upset. But the statement above represents a fairly significant mischaracterization, IMO.
Look, whether global warming contributed to the Haiti earthquake is fundamentally a moot point. No one knows whether or not this is true. From what little I know of AGW, I would say it is highly unlikely that global warming contributed to the earthquake; if I had to bet my life on it I would say it did not. OTOH, global warming does (apparently) impact sea levels, which – in theory – could have impacted plate activity. Please don’t reply with some sighing right-wing screed about how the sea level/plate activity theory is definitionally stupid; you don’t know, I don’t know, Danny Glover doesn’t know, the weather experts don’t know. It seems unlikely. But we don’t know.
Therefore, if Danny Glover is correct about the causes of this earthquake, then it would be reasons that are way, way, way above his pay grade as a run-of-the-mill stupid actor. And, yeah, he should shut his mouth about stuff that he knows nothing about. You can think whatever you want about whatever contributes to whatever else, but when you go on record and say that “this is the way something is!” that’s kind of ridiculous when you don’t know what you’re talking about, as Glover surely doesn’t when it comes to AGW and the Haiti quake.
Now, unless you’re possessed of what Sullivan has lately come to describe (terribly pretentiously) as “white ressentiment”, and you hate black people and diversity and the loss of WASP supremacy, it utterly, totally DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER what Danny Glover says about what caused the earthquake. Unless you revel in every opportunity to call out some random stupid black guy for sounding stupid, Danny Glover saying something idiotic is no different from the guy behind you in the grocery store saying something stupid. Holding him up as a spokesman for such things is the very definition of creating a straw man. And the fact that Danny Glover doesn’t know the first damn thing about what causes the earthquake is not only not “absurdly unimportant”, its in fact the most important element of this conversation – its why his opinion is utterly irrelevant (unless you like poking black people in the eye).
There couldn’t be a greater contrast between Glover’s non-knowledge of meteorological information and Robertson’s legions of evangelical followers who – sadly – look to that fool for an interpretation of Christ’s teaching. When Robertson drives the bus back and forth over the downtrodden, after cruel fate has thrown them under the bus – in obvious violation of the beatitudes – and calls it Christianity – and a bunch of stupid people really believe that crap – that’s a vastly, vastly, vastly different thing than some random damn Glover comment.
If you can’t see the difference between Robertson’s “crime” and Glover’s, you have to wonder whether that speaks more about your character than the rest of the players in this conversation.
Prediction: Joe Mama will ignore everything you just said, except your scare-quoted and obviously metaphorical use of the word “crime,” and will snarkily accuse you of trampling on Pat Robertson’s free speech.
(Well, that’s what he very well might have done, anyway, if I hadn’t predicted it. Now he won’t, of course. Instead, he’ll come up with some tortured argument about how folks on the Left do in fact follow the climate-change teachings of ignorant know-nothings like Hollywood celebrities and former vice presidents, and thus Glover’s statements are most certainly equivalent to Robertson’s, blah blah blah. Also, AGW is a religious faith. Also, Al Gore sux.)
There are two arguably worse aspects to the Glover/Robertson equivalence:
1) Glover was expressing faith in the impacts of AGW where agnosticism was in order; Robertson was objectively misinterpreting the Gospels in describing why the earthquake happened.
2) Even if you think that Glover is expressing his religious faith, even the most deranged, Beck-fellating, Palin-obsessing moron couldn’t possibly imagine that Glover’s view of AGW is going to lead to the creation of the Danny Glover Institute for Pushing Liberal Causes that Harm Doncha Know Doncha Know You Betcha Real White Americans. No one could be dumb enough to believe that.
2 cont) By contrast, when the poor people in Haiti are facing terrible circumstances, needing the aid of good, God-fearing Christians as much as they ever have, Pat Robertson basically misinterprets the Gospels to encourage millions of his purportedly Christian adherents to fuck the Haitians, cause Jesus wants things this way.
Further on the topic of Glover having faith where agnosticism is more appropriate, that makes him a deluded partisan idiot – a status he shares with probably 80% of his fellow Americans, on all sides of the partisan divide. For Joe Mama to level this particular complaint…dude, you may not be the last guy to take a piss on someone like Glover for having blind ideological faith (where he should be agnostic), but you’re definitely in the room.
Contrasting Glover’s error of overstating what should be agnostism (an error made by 80% of Americans, it seems) with Robertson claiming the Jesus who said “Blessed are the Poor” in the Sermon on the Mount also privately told him “Screw the Haitian Poor” is terribly misguided. But typical for the 21st century rump of the conservative party.
Those of you who are ideological hacks for the remaining rump of the Conservative party know that the Glover comparison has had some mileage as a talking point. Even though Robertson’s objective error will lead a bunch of dumb-assed followers of his not to help out, which may lead to many deaths, while Glover’s view doesn’t amount to shit.
For me there’s a personal irritation, since this RINO has sepia-toned fond notions of old-style conservatism, where the white dudes in the country clubs – while probably racist and misguided in that respect – were nevertheless guided by a strong sense of noblesse oblige, even if they were a bit racist and misogynistic.
There’s no noblesse oblige in the rump of the GOP. Which makes one wonder, sadly, if there ever was.
Brendan – can you show scientific evidence that AGW isn’t a faith or a cult ? It sure has the signs of being one, up to and including the sales of latter-day Indulgences …
More and more of the underpinnings of the AGW cult are unravelling as the East Anglia data “corrections” become better and better understood … without those “corrections”, the now-infamous “Hockey Stick Graph” has no scientific validity, and without the “Hockey Stick Graph”, the mockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth” loses *its* scientific underpinnings …
Do you have any comment on the arrogant data-altering that was done in East Anglia ?
Jazz – while global climate change can indeed affect sea levels, I can testify, from direct personal observations, that general global sea-levels are within inches of what they were 50 years ago, in spite of the best efforts of Almost-President Gore and current President Obama to convince us otherwise … the Falls of Lora not only still behave as they did 50 years ago, the barely-submerged rocks exposed at low tide are just as barely submerged as they were 50 years ago … the cockle beds from which I harvested cockles as a child are still exposed at low tide … the coastal roads which flooded at the highest of spring tides *still* flood at such tides, and still *don’t* flood during normal and neap tides …
From here – President Obama said “Rising sea levels threaten every coastline.” – except that the sea levels haven’t risen … how is this any different from when the Jehovah’s Witnesses proclaim (more than once in *my* lifetime, so far) that the world will end on a specific date ? And yet, on the day following the specified date, we managed to all still be around, doing what we were going to be doing on that day, anyway ?
When the Gore family and the Kennedy clan and the Kerry family start selling their currently-oceanfront properties and buying properties up around Denver and Mexico City, I’ll start to be more seriously concerned …
Until then, I trust the AGW folk as much as I trust Madoff or Robertson or LaRouche …
Jazz – “There’s no noblesse oblige in the rump of the GOP. Which makes one wonder, sadly, if there ever was.” – time will tell as to whether conservatives or liberals will donate more to help the Haitians …
My prediction is that the conservative/religious side *will* donate more of their own money from their own pockets while the liberal/secular side *may* donate more from other people’s pockets … (based upon the study referenced in this article from a well-known unbiased source …
Alasdair, your response to my noblesse oblige comment was a good one. It was out of line for me to say that there is no more noblesse oblige in the Republican party, there’s obviously a lot of it, on the street anyway, if not in the mainstream media outlets. Another lesson for me not to blog on topics that are upsetting (some categorical Joe Mama amends may be called for here too).
You missed a spirited debate on the East Anglia scandal – not going to revisit it here, but in the context of this thread, wanted to note that many people question AGW because of the cult-like zeal of many of its adherents, such as apparently Danny Glover. I fully agree that not enough AGW adherents maintain a healthy skepticism. Here are a few other categories of life where too many people have perfect faith where a little agnosticism may be in order:
Their branch of a religion/Their politicial party/Their favorite sports team/Their view on “hot button issues”, such as abortion, the death penalty, guns, etc/Their country/Their neighborhood/Their kid’s school/and on and on and on.
From here, it seems people are inherently awful at agnosticism, across the board. Why pick on those who worry about AGW for special scorn in this area? If lack of healthy skepticism from a large segment of supporters is a reason to reject any topic, how will civilization ever advance at all?
Jazz,
Last time I checked, free speech was not a “crime.” Anyway, folks on the Left do in fact follow the climate-change teachings of ignorant know-nothings like Danny Glover and Al Gore, who sucks. Thus, Glover’s statements are most certainly equivalent to Robertson’s.
Joe Mama,
No, no one is going to change their behaviors at all because of the views of Danny Glover. That some – disgustingly, perhaps a lot – of Robertson supporters will keep their money in their pocket because of his perspective still makes Robertson’s comments materially far worse than Glover’s.
Jazz – a search here on “East Anglia” only turned up one thing – and referenced the Popular Mechanic article, which, at first glance, doesn’t seem to care about the data-tampering …
When I have more time, this weekend, I’ll scan here some more to try to find the “spirited debate” … (grin)
Seriously though, both Robertson’s statements and Glover’s statements reflect opinions of a religious nature, hence the equivalence. It has absolutely nothing, nothing at all, to do with who they are. If Glover was a beloved guru and Robertson was some podunk evangelist that no one had ever heard of, what they each said would STILL be outrageously stupid and without any factual basis whatsoever…or, not to put too fine a point on it…religious. What matters is the substance of what they each said, and David of all people actually makes the only relevant point in this regard (albeit overshadowed by his usual silly ad hominems): Robertson’s statements were genuinely hateful, Glover’s weren’t. Of course, hatefulness is not the only measure of equivalence.
Speaking of substance, Robertson claimed that the Haitians made a pact with the Devil to get the French out of Haiti, and since then were cursed by calamity after calamity. The Gospels didn’t have anything to do with it.
I’m going to chalk Jazz’s rather obnoxious and completely gratuitous flash of the race card up to him being “upset,” at the risk of Brendan getting further lathered up because I didn’t respond to all of Jazz’s substantive points.
Brendan, you are really, really bad at predicting what I’m going to say. Stick with your caricatures.
“Rising sea levels threaten every coastline.” – except that the sea levels haven’t risen
Actually they HAVE been rising, for quite a while in fact, whats important is that they have started rising significantly more in recent decades. People aren’t just making it up, there are verifiable scientific records which show this. In addition glaciers are melting significantly, also verifiable.
Whats sad is there are people like you who deny objective reality and verifiable facts in the name of your right wing beliefs. Want something comparable to a Jehovahs Witness spouting unsupportable beliefs and ignoring things you don’t want to hear. Its almost funny except that there are enough people like you who create problems for the rest of us so we have to deal with you instead of just laughing at your inanity like we should.
Please provide a link to your scientific “evidence” that the sea levels have risen or are rising. The research I have done shows that every true expert on sea levels state that the sea levels have not riisen, and that any future rise will be no more than 8″ at worst.
The U.N. reports and AGW papers that discuss rising sea levels used no sea level experts in their research.
Gahrie – you seem to forget that David K’s major skill seems to be projection …
He is able to ignore the objective reality of tidal effects which are the same now as they were 50 years ago by accusing others of denying objective reality …
I recently got to this site on the web which deals with the manipulation of data in the US … and, unlike David, the people who broadcast it give other URLs to corroborative support for their side …
I’m curious as to what Brendan’s response will be to what they show there …
Alasdair:
Here is a post I wrote on my blog that was part of a previous discussion on this blog.
http://gahrie.blogspot.com/2009/11/some-inconvenient-truths.html
Joe Mama,
I apologize for using the race card with you earlier. I obviously don’t know you, and so I couldn’t possibly assess whether Sullivan’s pretentious white ressentiment was guiding your equivalence of Robertson and Glover. Its certainly possible that you were just picking up a talking point there.
On a broader level, I think Sullivan is correct (if terribly pretentious) in summing up Palin’s appeal as being overwhelmingly due to white resentment (and hot legs). Here after all is a politician whose one claim to competence is a high approval rating, which was earned after she socked a giant tax on oil companies, giving back the revenues to her minions, the type of action that routinely leads to sentences from Joe Mama starting with “The Left…”. You, and the people of Alaska, didn’t like Palin because there was anything remotely conservative about her. There must be something beyond the legs and her socialist policies. I’m looking at the “Real Amurrica” code for good old fashioned white folks’ rule for a hint.
As regards Glover’s stupid comment – I don’t follow everything everyone says, but if Murtaugh makes a random dumb comment about the earthquake, it seems inevitable that Riggs would have blamed the thing on the Jews or something. Raising Glover to the spokesman – of anything – when our expectation was that he would otherwise just disappear – naturally raises the question of why he should be a strawman, and in the world of Palin-as-white-wonderwoman, its hard to look past Glover’s race. But not in your particular case, Joe Mama, and I shouldn’t have made that connection, since I couldn’t possibly know.
On Robertson: actually, the gospels have everything to do with his statement, unless you think that the poor in spirit that Jesus referred to in the Sermon on the Mount are only to earn our mercy if they didn’t once piss off the French. Funny, that. The crazy thing about the angry Fox Right is that you all are really pissed about something today, and you’ll be really pissed about it tomorrow, but the day after tomorrow you’ll flip over to sympathy, using your previous’ opponent’s chagrin as reason to diminish the suffering of your (now common) enemies.
Wasn’t it just the day before yesterday that I was watching Gretchen Carlson and Steve Doozy on Fox News saying – with grave expressions – that the French were so evil that we should really call our side of potatoes “Freedom” fries? And now, here, throwing those same French off as a colony disqualifies the miserable Haitians from Jesus’ protection? You Fox folks need to put out more press releases about who you hate, and who you like – its difficult for the rest of us to follow along, the landscape changes so often.
Jazz, I have no idea what Palin, the Sermon on the Mount, or the “Fox Right” (whatever that is) have to do with this discussion, nor do I have the slightest clue where you get the notion that I hate anyone, but I accept your apology.
Jazz:
Those “fox folks”, both those on the channel and those who watch it, donate farm more of their time and money, in both absolute and relative terms, than the the leftists of this country.
Conservatives and the right donate their time and money, liberals and the left demand that the government spend someone else’s time and money.
What Robertson said was stupid. But I bet he and his church have donated far more time and money to the poor of the world than any public figure on the left.
Gahrie,
Point taken, as noted earlier to Alasdair. Its possible that the political face of the Republican party has been overtaken by Atwater/Rove-style bloody electioneering, with the media face overtaken by the cynicism of Roger Ailes – but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the average Republican does not embrace the graciousness that is a traditional conservative hallmark, if not necessarily a hallmark of the Roves, Atwaters and Ailes of the world.
I’ve given a fair bit of thought to why Robertson would make a recommendation regarding the Haitians that runs so directly counter to what Jesus recommended on the Sermon on the Mount. I can’t come up with a reason, really, and my best guess is money. I suspect that the individuals who have bought all those figurines that have built the Robertson empire have been disproportionately hurt by the economic changes of the past 12 months, maybe the guy has not been selling figurines, and perhaps his empire is in trouble.
This is actually a bit of an issue at my church, which is participating in a synod drive to raise money for Haiti, though of course they ‘officially’ support the congregation helping out wherever they can – but would prefer if they got “credit” through synod channels (and prefer even more if the tithers don’t divert cash to Haiti!)
Maybe for Robertson, like everyone else, it all comes down to money in the end. I think about that song “Bulbs” from Van Morrison from the early 70s, its a story-in-song about frustration with The Man, like all of his songs, and it ends with
“After all, its all showbiz”
Perhaps that’s true for Robertson and all the rest of us, YMMV.
Further to gahrie’s point, while I defer to no one in my wish to see Robertson STFU and stop pretending to be some sort of goddamn profit, it’s certainly worth pointing out that what Robertson was doing when he made his outrageous utterance about Haitians was, you know, raising money for Haitians. His asininity notwithstanding, Robertson will do more for earthquake victims in Haiti than everyone on this blog combined. Just sayin’.
prophet
Joe Mama – no need to apologise … it has long been realised that the soaring commercialisation of Xmas is merely folk cleaving unto the Biblical Injunction – And There Shall Come A Profit Unto The Land At Christmas … … (grin) ..
Jazz – are you open to considering the possibility that the current “political face of the Republican party” is a manipulation by the major mainstream media sources ? Is it possible that a remarkably large segment of the US population currently believes what you believe simply because they don’t have access to enough information to be able to realise how bogus the current information climate is at the moment ?
For example, consider what you currently believe about the state of the US economy …
For example, from December 13, 2009, the WaPo has this … you know, yourself, what teh current Administration and Congress are saying …
Contrast that with this from the Federal Reserve Bank …
While I am not an economist by profession, I *am* Scots and a compulsive reader from many and divers sources, and educationa dn experience suggest that what the Federal Reserve Bank is saying needs to be disseminated much more widely before we in the US commit ourselves and our kids to paying for the stupidities proposed for Health Care and Cap-and-Trade …
Currently, the Pelosi/Reid Recession has become the Pelosi/Reid/Obama Recession … do we *really* want it to become the Pelosi/Reid/Obama Depression ? Take a look at the Federal Reserve stats – they suggest that, absent sensible policies, we are heading for just such a Depression …
Alasdair:
Here is a link to that previous AGW thread by the way:
http://www.brendanloy.com/lrt/2009/11/23/the-gops-unserious-leaders/comment-page-2/#comment-3780
Below are extensive excerpts from an interesting (and hotly controversial, judging by the Comments) guestpost on FiveThirtyEight.com by Robert Taber, a doctoral candidate in Carribbean History at the University of Florida. All emphases below are mine.
Read the whole thing. I link to & quote from it here Not in support of the Rev. Robertson, in the rock-solid Reliability of whose invariable Jackassery I place unwavering faith — but simply because to me in my Ignorance (which conceivably one or two other LRT readers might share :), Taber’s essay provides an Informative historical perspective. / And here all I knew about Voudou was that Papa Doc, shall we say, Declined to Discourage ;> the popular perception that he was Baron Samedi. (Then again I’m a guy who, upon viewing a Danvers MA bookstore’s multiplicity of competing scholarly studies on the various purported socio-psychological roots of the Salem Village witchcraft hysteria, griped that the only theory-of-causation these eminent texts omitted was the obvious one: that it was the Devil made them do it. 😉
That does look suspiciously like a pact with Satan.
That doesn’t explain why people are paying attention to Robertson in the first place, but it does move him out of “batshit crazy” territory, unless that’s where you put believers.
AP, Sunday — excerpt:
Look, whether Haitians made a pact with the Devil that caused the earthquake is fundamentally a moot point. No one knows whether or not this is true. From what little I know of Haitian history, I would say it is highly unlikely that Haitians made a pact with the Devil which caused the earthquake; if I had to bet my life on it I would say it did not; OTOH, you don’t know, I don’t know, Pat Robertson doesn’t know, historians and theologians don’t know. It seems unlikely. But we don’t know 😛
Oh, I don’t Know about that, JM. ;}
Come to think of it, JM, there just might be someone who knows. BWAAH-ha-haaaa… ;> (Actually from the rather disappointed expression on the old boy’s face, I’d guess if he knows Anything it’s that the curse is a load of Crap. 🙂
* * * * * * * * * *
But Joe, what’s interesting for me is not what caused the earthquake — which I suspect may have been stresses in the earth’s tectonic plates — but rather, the various strains of religious belief in Haitian culture.
Joe Mama,
I must admit I am flattered that you remembered my verbiage way back in post 13 in attempting to take a shot at me in post 38. Though maybe not the ‘sincerest’ here, imitation must at least be some form of flattery. Puffery aside, its curious that you would pursue such a word game; in a thread where the unaddressed issue remains “Joe Mama appears not to understand the difference between the problem with Robertson’s and Glover’s comments”, appropriating my words (about Glover), and applying them nearly verbatim (about Robertson – as a coda), I’m sure confirms what many readers no doubt suspect regarding your lack of comprehension about why Robertson’s actions are not the same as Glover’s.
It could be that Joe Mama thought he was provided some cover by the fact that Robertson didn’t “make up” the ‘cursed by the devil’ story – that he was instead repeating a talking point. As a Fox News lover, its unlikely that Joe Mama digs much deeper than talking points in understanding the world, but for the rest of you, keep in mind that talking points are really irrelevant to whether Robertson “blaming” the alleged 18th century Devil pact for a 21st century cataclysm is morally worse than Glover overreaching on AGW.
To understand why this is so, consider the Myth of the Stab in the Back, which claimed that internationalist conspirators – particularly Jews – were responsible for Germany’s ruinous surrender in WWI, which war was still winnable, according to the mythmakers. The myth was used frequently by Hitler and his minions to help justify the horrors of the Holocaust; the myth is a talking point, more extreme in its hideousness but surely in the same ballpark as the alleged Haitian-devil pact 200 years ago ‘causing’ the disastrous earthquake last week.
Funny, my family was watching State of the Union with John King yesterday morning, he had on Clinton and Dubya, and my wife noted how Clinton has the most distressing bags under his eyes, and he doesn’t just have crows feet, he has a whole damn crow’s colony, an indication that he is surely burning the candle at both ends, working hard with his Global Initiative during the day and working hard to chase tail at night. Dubya’s face, by contrast, was smoother than Joan Rivers’ after a week of Botox. Obviously, my wife noted, one of these men is bringing it, and the other is taking lots of naps. Later King had on Matalin and Carville, and Carville was charming and Matalin was shrill, as they always are, leading me to observe that, while I very much want to raise my daughters in the conservative tradition, the simple fact is that conservatives are almost universally less impressive than liberals.
Less impressive, like Joe Mama gleefully appropriating the stigma of an unanswered criticism in an attempt to be funny, or worse, the hideous triumphant laughter of Gahrie and Alasdair that pthread “lost” his bet – which laughter continued after it was clarified for those guys that they didn’t know what the fuck they were talking about.
That is definitely one way to put it. Another way would be that the unaddressed issue remains “Jazz appears not to understand that both Robertson’s and Glover’s comments reflect opinions of a religious nature” given that there is the same lack of factual support for both, which likewise confirms what many readers no doubt suspect regarding your comprehension skills.
As a postscript – the comparison of the Myth of the Stab in the Back justifying the Holocaust and the Bois Caiman agreement leading to last week’s earthquake share one other important commonality: they’re both based on objectively incorrect interpretations of the facts on the ground.
In the Germans’ case, the Stab in the Back attempts to cover up military blunders from their leaders at the end of WWI. For Haiti, the Bois Caiman agreement unequivocally states (and Joe Loy even bolded this text!) that the Devil had a 200 year lease, which would have expired in 1991.
Which leads to a conundrum – I’m not much of a talking point guy, so maybe one of our Fox News friends, who seem to revel in them, can help us out – if you pick up a talking point, and you factually misrepresent it, are you still preaching the talking point, or does the misrepresentation mean you are definitionally on your own, pushing a new talking point?
I’m not much of a talking point guy, so maybe one of our Fox News friends, who seem to revel in them, can help us out – if you pick up a talking point, and you factually misrepresent it, are you still preaching the talking point, or does the misrepresentation mean you are definitionally on your own, pushing a new talking point?
Who and what are you talking about?
Joe M,
I think we all get where you’re coming from in using “religious conviction” as the equivalence between Glover’s and Robertson’s actions. I think we also all get that you can find just about any metric you wish to claim that two otherwise disparate things exist on the same plane.
To wit: the Myth of the Stab in the Back was used as a way to cause a lot of people to suffer greatly because of the (alleged) actions of a few. A couple years ago, the entire highly ranked Duke lacrosse team had to sit out an entire year because of the alleged actions of a few of their players with a stripper at a party.
Therefore, by Joe Mama-esque logic, the Holocaust is roughly equivalent with the inconveniences faced by the Duke lacrosse team after the false rape charges. Perhaps those Duke lacrosse players should refer to their Holocaust?
Who and what are you talking about?
1) Pat Robertson picked up the talking point that the Devil, who was given a 200-year lease on Haiti as a result of the Bois Camian pact, consequently caused the earthquake.
2) The pact in question ran from 1791 to 1991. The devil’s lease was up nearly two decades ago.
3) Therefore, Pat Robertson is misrepresenting a talking point, and my question remains, is he now using a new talking point, or is it still the same talking point, even though the details are incorrect?
Jazz:
You forgot to call Palin stupid.
I’ll just respond by noting again, we “fox viewers” donate more of our time and money to charity and disaster relief than you noble leftists, and we always have.
Name one public figure on the left who has given more time and money to the poor of the world than Robertson.
Your using this issue to attack Bush and the right is pathetic, and as inappropriate as Robertson’s intial remarks.
That very much depends on what -esque means. Look, while I don’t agree with it, I obviously understand the supposed disparity between Robertson’s and Glover’s statements based on each person’s position. I’ve never met or heard any practicing Christian who considers Robertson to be any kind of spokesman for their faith, or who takes much of anything he says (particularly his more outlandish statements) all that seriously, although I’m sure many people do, and Danny Glover isn’t out there proselytizing and taking money, although IMO there are at least as many people who agree with his lunacy as there are those who agree with (or are agnostic towards) Robertson’s lunacy, but whatever. But Robertson as the Holocaust and Glover as the Duke lacrosse team?! We’re talking about two prominent people both making well publicized statements about the same natural disaster who each — along with many like-minded people — sincerely hold to be true without any factual support, i.e., on faith. That’s not just “any metric,” they are similar in virtually every aspect except that one purportedly speaks from a position of authority on his particular religion. Not a good analogy.
On talking points, I’m glad you clarified that you were talking about Robertson, because I’d bet most readers assumed you were referring to me.
” For Haiti, the Bois Caiman agreement unequivocally states (and Joe Loy even bolded this text!) that the Devil had a 200 year lease, which would have expired in 1991.”
Yeah but Jazz, do we really expect Lucifer to honor his Contracts? Why, Hell (so to Speak), even if they got Nicholas Cage to track down the Document and bring it back on his motorbike, how could the Haitians sue ol’ Beelzebub for Breach & unlawful Occupancy? He’s got all the Lawyers. ;>
(Apologies to Brendan. 🙂