Down yonder, a reader writes:
Any idea how we can contact Columbia House and express our disgust?
Yep!
HERE’S THEIR ONLINE CUSTOMER CONTACT FORM.
And you can call their (curiously non-toll-free) customer service line:
812-242-7000
If you are a blogger or would e-mail friends and family about this, please take this opportunity to rally folks to contact Columbia House and let them know the level of opposition there is out their to their porn club!
More results from the VOLUNTEER PROGRAM. Thanks to Christopher A. St. Jean for doing the October, 2004 shows!
Highlights:
COLUMBIA HOUSE STARTS PORN CLUB.
It’s this kind of thing that makes me wish I had something to do with Columbia House just so I could call and cancel my account.
May still call them, though, and tell them that because of their new porn club I will never have anything to do with them in the future.
HERE’S A STORY IN WHICH THE ASSOCIATED PRESS CLAIMS THAT A "CARDINAL SAYS BUSH BROKE IRAQ PROMISE."
Trouble is, the article shows the cardinal (Pio Laghi) saying nothing of the kind.
It quotes him as saying:
"When I went to Washington as the pope’s envoy just before the outbreak of the war in Iraq, he (Bush) told me: `Don’t worry, your eminence. We’ll be quick and do well in Iraq,’"
"Unfortunately, the facts have demonstrated afterward that things took a different course — not rapid and not favorable."
"Bush was wrong."
I’m sorry, but "Bush was wrong" does not mean "Bush broke a promise." The first statement attributes to the President a misperception of fact (how things would go), while the second attributes to him a moral failure to perform actions that were reasonably within his power to bring about–or a moral failure by making promises regarding something that one unreasonably believed to be within one’s power to bring about.
The Cardinal attributes neither of the latter to President Bush.
Opponents of the President might wish to attribute these to him, though based on what the Cardinal says I severely doubt that Bush was understood to promise a specific outcome. It would be more natural to understand the President as making a commitment to act expeditiously and making a prediction (not a promise) that things would go well. The first (commitment to act expeditiously) is a promise. The second (things will go well) is not.
In any event, but the Cardinal does not say that Bush broke a promise, and by headlining the article the way it did, the Associated Press misportrayed the Cardinal’s remarks–and simultaneously portrayed itself as a petulant organization willing to spout Democratic Party spin as if it were a pouting child suffering a disappointing loss.
Since the AP says it subscribes to the Associated Press Managing Editors’ ethics statement, it’s interesting to note that this statement says:
The newspaper should guard against inaccuracies, carelessness, bias
or distortion through emphasis, omission or technological manipulation.The newspaper should deal honestly with readers and newsmakers. It should keep its promises [SOURCE].
Well, the AP didn’t sufficiently do these things in crafting the headline of this story. It therefore is also interesting to note that the APME ethics statement also says:
It should acknowledge substantive errors and correct them promptly and prominently.
Somehow, I doubt the AP will issue a retraction.
Now, someone might nitpick that I haven’t demonstrated that the AP broke a promise because the ethics statement only says a paper should guard against inaccuracies, not that it is committed to preventing them.
Fair enough. If the AP is not committed to preventing inaccuracies then it has not broken one of its commitments.
But my headline is at least as accurate as the AP’s.
COLUMBIA HOUSE STARTS PORN CLUB.
It’s this kind of thing that makes me wish I had something to do with Columbia House just so I could call and cancel my account.
May still call them, though, and tell them that because of their new porn club I will never have anything to do with them in the future.
Rocks of ice, that is! Right down near the mountains of madness.
Yee-haw!
Are you ready to RUUUUUMMMMBBBBLLLLLE???
It’s a polar showdown grudge match between two bodacious beefy blocks of ice!
Take it away . . . NASA!
Get Ready for the Largest Demolition Derby on the Planet
Scientists say Slow-Motion Collision Near Antarctic Research Station ImminentIt is an event so large that the best seat in the house is in space: a
massive iceberg is on a collision course with a floating glacier near
the McMurdo Research Station in Antarctica. NASA satellites have
witnessed the 100-mile-long B-15A iceberg moving steadily towards the
Drygalski Ice Tongue. Though the iceberg’s pace has slowed in recent
days, NASA scientists expect a collision to occur no later than January
15, 2005."It’s a clash of the titans, a radical and uncommon event," says Robert
Bindshadler, a researcher at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and if
the two giant slabs of ice collide, we could see one of the best
demolition derbies on the planet.If the collision occurs as predicted, this could be an event that we
witness again and again. The tides that drive the iceberg’s motion tend
to push it in circles.
Hoooooooooooooooo-eeeee! YEAH! Clash! Rocks! Clash!
This is a show I taped while in Michigan visiting Steve Ray and Ed Peters. As a result, all three of us were guests.
Highlights:
. . . that there are two guys running for president. Call them Candidate X and Candidate Y.
Suppose further that there are parties attacking the military records of Candidate X and Y and bringing up all kinds of allegations about what they did or didn’t do during the Vietnam War.
Suppose that there is a TV network that at first refuses to cover the allegations made against Candidate X by a large number of sources and then, when the story becomes too big to ignore, heaps scorn on those making the allegations, trying its best to shoot holes in their account.
Suppose finally that the same TV network eagerly hops on the allegations made against Candidate Y by a single source and, when virtually the entire blogosphere shoots holes in the allegations, the network stiffly and rigidly defends the allegations.
Could you fairly conclude that the TV network and the people at it who were involved in these stories were biased against Candidate Y in favor of Candidate X?
How then can the CBS Rathergate pannel say something like this?
The question of whether a political agenda played any role in the
airing of the Segment is one of the most subjective, and most
difficult, that the Panel has sought to answer. The political agenda
question was posed by the Panel directly to Dan Rather and his
producer, Mary Mapes, who appear to have drawn the greatest attention
in terms of possible political agendas. Both
strongly denied that they brought any political bias to the Segment.
The Panel recognizes that those who saw bias at work in the Segment are
likely to sweep such denials aside. However, the Panel will not level
allegations for which it cannot offer adequate proof [LINK–Evil file format (.pdf) warning!].
I don’t think there’s anything "subjective" here. I think the bias is blatantly obvious. Viewing the Rathergate sandal in the context of the overall election, it is obvious what was happening: This was a desperate attempt to get a military record story on Bush to neutralize the effect of the Swiftvet story on Kerry. Only a "myopic zeal" for focusing on the Rathergate story in isolation from the Swiftvet story could lead one to think that there is not adequate proof of bias in this case.
. . . that there are two guys running for president. Call them Candidate X and Candidate Y.
Suppose further that there are parties attacking the military records of Candidate X and Y and bringing up all kinds of allegations about what they did or didn’t do during the Vietnam War.
Suppose that there is a TV network that at first refuses to cover the allegations made against Candidate X by a large number of sources and then, when the story becomes too big to ignore, heaps scorn on those making the allegations, trying its best to shoot holes in their account.
Suppose finally that the same TV network eagerly hops on the allegations made against Candidate Y by a single source and, when virtually the entire blogosphere shoots holes in the allegations, the network stiffly and rigidly defends the allegations.
Could you fairly conclude that the TV network and the people at it who were involved in these stories were biased against Candidate Y in favor of Candidate X?
How then can the CBS Rathergate pannel say something like this?
The question of whether a political agenda played any role in the
airing of the Segment is one of the most subjective, and most
difficult, that the Panel has sought to answer. The political agenda
question was posed by the Panel directly to Dan Rather and his
producer, Mary Mapes, who appear to have drawn the greatest attention
in terms of possible political agendas. Both
strongly denied that they brought any political bias to the Segment.
The Panel recognizes that those who saw bias at work in the Segment are
likely to sweep such denials aside. However, the Panel will not level
allegations for which it cannot offer adequate proof [LINK–Evil file format (.pdf) warning!].
I don’t think there’s anything "subjective" here. I think the bias is blatantly obvious. Viewing the Rathergate sandal in the context of the overall election, it is obvious what was happening: This was a desperate attempt to get a military record story on Bush to neutralize the effect of the Swiftvet story on Kerry. Only a "myopic zeal" for focusing on the Rathergate story in isolation from the Swiftvet story could lead one to think that there is not adequate proof of bias in this case.
A reader writes:
I recently found your site and have thoroghly enjoyed
reading it. Your websites awsome! I wanted to comment on
your article Cold and Flu People at Mass. Thank you for pointing out
that sick people should be content with recieving Him under the
appearance of bread -rather then share their germs on the chalice.
Also, holding hands during the Our Father or shaking hands during the
kiss of peace should not be done if someone has a catching sickness. Children, and as you pointed out adults, need to cover their
mouths when the cough and not coughing on someone else is always a good
thing.One comment in your article concerned me however. I
was surprised to read that having a contagious disease is a valid
excuse to miss Mass. While in the case of small pox or something of
that sort I would agree, are you sure that a cold validly excuses a
person from their sunday obligation? Worshiping at Mass is the most
important thing any of us will ever do. We do have an obligation not
to spread disease, but this can be done by following a few common sense
steps (which you mention in your article). Also, if one is severely
ill and absolutly cannot make it to Mass they should have someone bring
them communion.I only mention this because people can be inclined to
take the ‘easy way out’. A mere case of the sniffles (or the
perception that they are going to get sick) will offer enough excuse to
stay in bed on a Sunday morning under the pretext that it is better to
miss Mass then spread their germs.Please don’t be angry with this note. I respect that
you sacrifice your time to promote the Catholic Church in your website
and will keep your ministry in my prayers. Like I said above, I’ve
thoroughly enjoyed what I have read on your site.
Several thoughts:
Having said all that, I want to assure you that the attitude motivating your question is quite commendable, especially in a day when so many people fail to show up at Mass.
Americans have a tendency to take rules of this much more strictly than Rome intends, and they don’t realize how many exceptions Rome sees in the law. Thus they end up dragging themselves to Mass and infecting those around them, which is not Rome’s intention. Indeed, if you read older moralists, they name all kind of reasons as valid excuses for missing Mass that seem quite light to Americans–e.g., Alphonsus Ligouri considered it a valid excuse not to go if you would have to ride a donkey for more than fifteen minutes.
While worship is the most important thing we do in life, one can worship at home when one is sick. Indeed, if done for a motive of charity, staying home and not infecting others is itself an act of worship toward God. Thus, for God’s sake (in the literal sense), one should stay home.
Hope this helps, and God bless!