Hey, Tim Jones, here. I saw Toy
Story 3 the other night, and found that – contrary to my fears a
year or more ago – it is a very worthy successor to the previous Toy
Story films. Lots of LOLs, and fun throughout.
I began to have a
sense of persistent déjà vu as the story progressed, though. Here
is the basic arc of the tale; WARNING!
SPOILERS!!
I want a word with Dr. Edward Peters (pictured).
And that word is . . .
CONGRATULATIONS!!!
According to Vatican Information Service, Pope Benedict XVI has–
Appointed as relators of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura: Fr. Eduardo Baura de la Pena, professor at the faculty of canon law of the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross; Fr. Paolo Giuseppe Bianchi, judicial vicar of the Ecclesiastical Regional Tribunal of Lombardy, Italy; Fr. Bruno Esposito O.P., professor at the faculty of canon law of the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas; Fr. Luigi Sabbarese C.S., dean of the faculty of canon law of the Pontifical Urban University, and Edward N. Peters, professor of canon law at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary of the archdiocese of Detroit U.S.A.
Over at his blog, Ed writes:
As one of some dozen international consultants to the Church’s highest administrative tribunal, it will be my privilege and responsibility to advise, on an as-needed basis, the officials of that dicastery regarding matters impacting the administration of law and justice within the Church.
A number of persons have graciously conveyed their congratulations to me on this honor, and I am truly grateful for their kind words. But I want to underscore that I see this appointment not so much as an honor, but rather, as an invitation to serve more effectively the mission of the Church as the Speculum Iustitiae [Mirror of Justice].
Even as I prepare, however, to place my training in canon and common law more readily at the service of the Church, I recall what Canon 1752 stresses, namely, that “the salvation of souls [is] the supreme law in the Church.” Salvation is not, in the end, a work of law, but one of love. As such, it is a work toward which we all can, and must, contribute.
Ergo, oremus pro invicem [Let us pray for one another]!
He also notes:
It bears mentioning perhaps that (1) in canon law consultors express opinions only and do not enjoy decision-making authority over the matters presented to them, and (2) my opinions as a canonist carry only the weight of the arguments I adduce for them, or in other words, that in all matters, I speak only for myself and not on behalf of the Church.
Rocco Palmo also notes (CHT: American Papist):
In a move recognizing a canonist held as one of the nation’s “premier” specialists in church law, the pontiff named Dr Edward Peters — the discipline’s lead hand at Detroit’s Sacred Heart Major Seminary — as a referendare of the Apostolic Signatura, a consultant to the church’s highest court. (One now, of course, led by its first-ever American prefect.)
A blogger and father of six beyond the classroom, the honor for a layman is unique — Peters becomes the lone non-cleric among the dozen or so consultors. What’s more, the four priests likewise added to the group this morning are all based in Rome or Milan.
So again, congratulations, Ed!
And definitely, oremus pro invicem!
That's what Congressman Hank Johnson is afraid is going to happen!
If it gets too overpopulated, Johnson fears it will "tip over" and "capsize."
Watch his comments for yourself . . .
(CHT: Hot Air.)
Oh, and for the record, Guam is 30 miles long and between 4 and 12 miles wide. It has a land area of 212 square miles.
Just so we're clear on that.
I’d like to thank The Anchoress and Andrew Sullivan for linking my previous pieceon Cardinal Ratzinger and the Murphy case, and for the kind things they said about it.
There is more to say about the story. Quite a bit, actually. In particular, I’ll be responding to Sullivan, and I’ll be able to report on the German story, but first there are some additional facts to get on the table regarding the Wisconsin one.
Let’s start with a piece by Fr. Thomas Brundage (pictured), who writes:
I was the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee from 1995-2003. During those years, I presided over four canonical criminal cases, one of which involved Father Lawrence Murphy. Two of the four men died during the process.
Interesting that Brundage says two of the four men died during the process. Contrary to what you would think from press reports, Murphy appears to be one of the two, given what shortly will become clear.
In any event, a 50% death rate seems to indicate aggressive prosecution of men even when they are quite old or in ill health. So already a picture is forming of Brundage as presiding over a vigorous court.
He has not been pleased with the New York Times’ (and other outlets’) reportage on the Murphy case:
As I have found that the reporting on this issue has been inaccurate and poor in terms of the facts, I am also writing from a sense of duty to the truth.
The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.
Yeowch!
In 1996, I was introduced to the story of Father Murphy, formerly the principal of St. John’s School for the Deaf in Milwaukee. It had been common knowledge for decades that during Father Murphy’s tenure at the school (1950-1974) there had been a scandal at St. John’s involving him and some deaf children. The details, however, were sketchy at best.
Courageous advocacy on behalf of the victims (and often their wives), led the Archdiocese of Milwaukee to revisit the matter in 1996.
“Courageous advocacy” suggests that there was a struggle requiring courage to get the Archdiocese of Milwaukee to act, presumably this involved the argument that Fr. Murphy’s crimes were committed long ago and that he was no longer in the diocese. Nevertheless . . .
In internal discussions of the curia for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, it became obvious that we needed to take strong and swift action with regard to the wrongs of several decades ago.
So far so good, but note this:
With the consent of then-Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland, we began an investigation into the allegations of child sexual abuse as well as the violation of the crime of solicitation within the confessional by Father Murphy.
Courageous advocacy . . . discussions in the curia regarding swift and strong action . . . “consent” of Weakland. Fr. Brundage is by no means saying this, and I could be misreading, but it sounds as if the primary momentum for prosecution originated in Weakland’s curia rather than with Weakland himself.
That would make sense given that Weakland himself had spent nearly half a million dollars in diocesan funds as hush money to keep a former homosexual lover from suing him for sexual abuse from around 1980.
There might be reasons he wouldn’t want to go prying into decades-old priestly sex cases. Who knows what could get unearthed in the process?
But the intensity of Murphy’s victims and the firmness of the curia was such that . . .
We proceeded to start a trial against Father Murphy. I was the presiding judge in this matter and informed Father Murphy that criminal charges were going to be levied against him with regard to child sexual abuse and solicitation in the confessional.
In my interactions with Father Murphy, I got the impression I was dealing with a man who simply did not get it. He was defensive and threatening.
Between 1996 and August, 1998, I interviewed, with the help of a qualified interpreter, about a dozen victims of Father Murphy. These were gut-wrenching interviews. In one instance the victim had become a perpetrator himself and had served time in prison for his crimes. I realized that this disease is virulent and was easily transmitted to others. I heard stories of distorted lives, sexualities diminished or expunged. These were the darkest days of my own priesthood, having been ordained less than 10 years at the time. Grace-filled spiritual direction has been a Godsend.
I also met with a community board of deaf Catholics. They insisted that Father Murphy should be removed from the priesthood and highly important to them was their request that he be buried not as a priest but as a layperson. I indicated that a judge, I could not guarantee the first request and could only make a recommendation to the latter request.
In the summer of 1998, I ordered Father Murphy to be present at a deposition at the chancery in Milwaukee. I received, soon after, a letter from his doctor that he was in frail health and could travel not more than 20 miles (Boulder Junction to Milwaukee would be about 276 miles). A week later, Father Murphy died of natural causes in a location about 100 miles from his home.
It would be interesting to learn where that was.
With regard to the inaccurate reporting on behalf of the New York Times, the Associated Press, and those that utilized these resources, first of all, I was never contacted by any of these news agencies but they felt free to quote me. Almost all of my quotes are from a document that can be found online with the correspondence between the Holy See and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. In an October 31, 1997 handwritten document, I am quoted as saying ‘odds are that this situation may very well be the most horrendous, number wise, and especially because these are physically challenged , vulnerable people. “ Also quoted is this: “Children were approached within the confessional where the question of circumcision began the solicitation.”
The problem with these statements attributed to me is that they were handwritten. The documents were not written by me and do not resemble my handwriting. The syntax is similar to what I might have said but I have no idea who wrote these statements, yet I am credited as stating them. As a college freshman at the Marquette University School of Journalism, we were told to check, recheck, and triple check our quotes if necessary. I was never contacted by anyone on this document, written by an unknown source to me. Discerning truth takes time and it is apparent that the New York Times, the Associated Press and others did not take the time to get the facts correct.
Yeah. What is it with the mainstream media? How did they get so arrogant, or sloppy, or both?
Now here comes a very interesting point, but first let’s go back to the NYT documentation for a moment.
You will recall that there was a meeting at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that was presided over by (now Cardinal) Bertone, who did not tell Weakland, Sklba, and Fliss (the American bishops involved in the case) that they couldn’t proceed with the case but who pointed out some difficulties and made some recommendations. (More on that in a new post soon. Very interesting stuff coming up on that meeting.)
When they got back home, Weakland sent a letter to Bertone saying that he (Weakland) had decided to abate the proceedings against Fr. Murphy, and that he had instructed Brundage to do so.
But Brundage says he never got the message:
Additionally, in the documentation in a letter from Archbishop Weakland to then-secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone on August 19, 1998, Archbishop Weakland stated that he had instructed me to abate the proceedings against Father Murphy. Father Murphy, however, died two days later and the fact is that on the day that Father Murphy died, he was still the defendant in a church criminal trial. No one seems to be aware of this.
So this is why Murphy was one of two defendants who apparently died during a case that Brundage was overseeing.
Weakland may have decided to abate the proceedings, but Brundage didn’t get the message before Murphy died. Furthermore . . .
Had I been asked to abate this trial, I most certainly would have insisted that an appeal be made to the supreme court of the church, or Pope John Paul II if necessary. That process would have taken months if not longer.
So Brundage was thoroughly committed to seeing this thing through. Again, aggressive judge; passive Weakland.
Now what does Brundage have to say about Cardinal Ratzinger’s role in all this?
Second, with regard to the role of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), in this matter, I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all. Placing this matter at his doorstep is a huge leap of logic and information.
As we saw in the previous post.
Also, there’s this note on the timeliness of the CDF’s reply to Weakland, which took nine months. I didn’t mention it in my previous post, but by Vatican standards, that’s actually rather quick (Americans have a whole different perspective on the use of time and what counts as efficient). Brundage, though, makes the point explicit:
Third, the competency to hear cases of sexual abuse of minors shifted from the Roman Rota to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith headed by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2001. Until that time, most appeal cases went to the Rota and it was our experience that cases could languish for years in this court. When the competency was changed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in my observation as well as many of my canonical colleagues, sexual abuse cases were handled expeditiously, fairly, and with due regard to the rights of all the parties involved. I have no doubt that this was the work of then Cardinal Ratzinger.
I know the defenses that would be made on behalf of the Rota. Small staff. Huge Church. Also, I’m an American and I want everything done yesterday. Fine. This is a point on which there can be legitimate disagreement. Should Americans have more patience? Maybe. Should the Vatican ramp up its staff to correspond to the size of the Church it’s got? Maybe.
My point is: As open to criticism as the CDF’s initial nine month delay might be, it was actually relatively swift. (And, y’know, things tend to drag in the secular courts, too. They’re not often doing drumheads these days.)
I’ll have more soon, but for now let’s let Fr. Brundage have the last word:
Fourth, Pope Benedict has repeatedly apologized for the shame of the sexual abuse of children in various venues and to a worldwide audience. This has never happened before. He has met with victims. He has reigned in entire conferences of bishops on this matter, the Catholic Bishops of Ireland being the most recent. He has been most reactive and proactive of any international church official in history with regard to the scourge of clergy sexual abuse of minors. Instead of blaming him for inaction on these matters, he has truly been a strong and effective leader on these issues.
Finally, over the last 25 years, vigorous action has taken place within the church to avoid harm to children. Potential seminarians receive extensive sexual-psychological evaluation prior to admission. Virtually all seminaries concentrate their efforts on the safe environment for children. There have been very few cases of recent sexual abuse of children by clergy during the last decade or more.
Catholic dioceses all across the country have taken extraordinary steps to ensure the safety of children and vulnerable adults. As one example, which is by no means unique, is in the Archdiocese of Anchorage, where I currently work. Here, virtually every public bathroom in parishes has a sign asking if a person has been abuse by anyone in the church. A phone number is given to report the abuse and almost all church workers in the archdiocese are required to take yearly formation sessions in safe environment classes. I am not sure what more the church can do.
To conclude, the events during the 1960’s and 1970’s of the sexual abuse of minors and solicitation in the confessional by Father Lawrence Murphy are unmitigated and gruesome crimes. On behalf of the church, I am deeply sorry and ashamed for the wrongs that have been done by my brother priests but realize my sorrow is probably of little importance 40 years after the fact. The only thing that we can do at this time is to learn the truth, beg for forgiveness, and do whatever is humanly possible to heal the wounds. The rest, I am grateful, is in God’s hands.
Your thoughts?
Welcome readers of The Anchoress and Andrew Sullivan.
See also: EVIL MONSTER UPDATE: THE INSIDE STORY.
The level of vitriol being directed at Pope Benedict by the mainstream media right now is truly extraordinary. It’s primarily drive by desire for cash (scandal sells), followed closely by hatred, along with a hefty dose of ignorance.
Reading Maureen Dowd’s latest opinion column is just a cringe-inducing experience.
Even in ostensible news pieces the misrepresentation of facts is staggering. That’s where the ignorance comes in. Reporters in the mainstream media are seldom well versed in the matters they are reporting on, and it is clear that—even when outright malice is excluded from the equation—they simply do not have the background to properly understand or report on how the Vatican works and what its actions mean.
I am not saying that the Holy See’s handling of abuse cases can’t be legitimately criticized. I’m not saying that then-Cardinal Ratzinger/now-Pope Benedict XVI didn’t experience a learning curve on this point. And I don’t know what else is out there that remains to be discovered.
But I am saying that the media is getting this story wrong, particularly in the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy, the American priest whose case was dealt with by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when Cardinal Ratzinger was its head.
The New York Times has done a great service to those wanting to look into this story by putting online a large number of primary source documents pertaining to the case. No doubt they mean these to incriminate Pope Benedict, but if you read them carefully—and if you know the relevant background—they don’t. (The documents are also posted here in .pdf format.)
So let’s look at the facts of the case in light of the documents:
Lawrence Murphy was born in 1925 and was ordained a priest in 1950. He served at St. John’s School for the Deaf from 1963 to 1974, during which time he later admitted to having abused 19 boys (press reports are saying as many as 200, but there is speculation involved there).
In the mid 1970s his victims complained to the police, but this did not result in a trial.
Note well: This is not a case of the diocese preventing the police from knowing about it. They already knew.
His victims also hung “most wanted” posters of him outside Milwaukee’s cathedral to urge Church authorities to deal with the situation. According to a document from the 1990s produced in preparation for a Church trial, virtually no documentation was available on the details of what the Milwaukee archdiocese did regarding the case back in the 1970s, but the result is known in broad brush.
Murphy was removed from the school for the deaf and given no further pastoral assignment. He moved back to his family residence, where he lived with his mother. Except for occasional visits to his brother in Houston, he lived in this house for the rest of his life.
He was never granted a pastoral assignment by the diocese of Superior, in which he was now living, but he occasionally said Mass at parishes and was used in some capacity at retreats for deaf people, due to his ability to communicate in sign language.
There were no further allegations of sexual abuse against him.
In 1995, some of Murphy’s victims and their lawyers contacted the now-archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland (ironic, yes, but that’s a different issue), reporting Murphy’s actions from the 1970s.
In December of 1995, Weakland ordered a preliminary investigation to determine whether the allegations had merit. It was concluded that they did.
However, because the charges against Murphy included the abuse of the sacrament of confession—an offense that was (and is) reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—Weakland wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger in July 1996 asking for guidance in how to proceed.
Note this well: Back in 1996 the CDF did not have a mandate to handle cases of sexual abuse by priests. It does now. It received that mandate later. But in 1996 it did not have one. The reason that Weakland notified the CDF was not because the abuse of minors was involved but because the abuse of the sacrament of confession was involved.
Weakland had not received a reply by October of 1996, and he began preparations for a canonical trial of Murphy.
In February 1997 Murphy raised the point that his crimes were committed before the 1983 Code of Canon Law was issued and that under the legal norms in force at the time, the statute of limitations had run out.
This caused Weakland to contact the Holy See with a request that the statute of limitations be waived so that the trial could proceed. He sent the request in March 1997 to the Apostolic Signatura, noting that he hadn’t heard from the CDF.
Since the case involved offenses reserved to the CDF, the Signatura promptly forwarded the request there, and within two weeks Weakland had a reply from the CDF.
The reply came from the secretary of the congregation, (now Cardinal) Tarcisio Bertone.
Here are two important points:
1) The delay in response. Weakland first wrote to the CDF in July 1996. He got his reply (after a further prompting) in March 1997—nine months later.
If you want to criticize, here is a possible thing to criticize. The CDF could have gotten back to him in a more timely manner. On the other hand, the CDF does not have a huge staff but it does have a huge mission as the Church’s theological quality control department. I think this one is debatable.
2) Note that the reply came from Bertone, not Ratzinger. This is actually what you would expect. The way these dicasteries work, while the Cardinal Prefect (Ratzinger, in this case) is in charge, it is the Secretary (Bertone) who is the actual “show-runner”—the one who oversees the day-to-day functioning of the department. So while you would write to Ratzinger as a matter of protocol, you would expect him to hand the matter off to Bertone and to hear back from the latter. Indeed, after deference to Ratzinger has been paid by writing the first letter to him, Weakland and Bishop Fliss of Superior correspond directly with Bertone.
This creates a situation where we don’t really know what Ratzinger’s involvement was. In the documentation presented by the New York Times Ratzinger never replies. It’s always Bertone who does so. Bertone (not Ratzinger) even chairs a meeting at the Vatican on the matter.
Did Cardinal Ratzinger even see the initial letter regarding Murphy? Maybe. Or maybe it was given to Bertone as part of his role as show-runner. Maybe the mail room at the CDF automatically gives correspondence addressed to the Cardinal Prefect to the Secretary, who serves as his filter. I don’t know. (Maybe someone who knows such things can clarify in the combox. Please cite sources.)
Incidentally, note that in his statement, press spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi carefully and repeatedly talks about what “the Congregation” did regarding the Murphy case, not what Cardinal Ratzinger did.
Guess why.
So we don’t know if Ratzinger saw the letter, or if he was told about it, or what if anything he did.
That’s important to how we evaluate the story. Criticize the way these departments are run if you want, but we don’t have evidence that Ratzinger did anything in bad conscience.
He’s also been the leading change-agent pressing for tougher measures against abusive priests for nearly ten years.
So what did Bertone say in his reply to Weakland’s request for a waiver of the statute of limitations? He said for Weakland to continue the judicial process against Murphy, thus waiving the statute of limitations, while asking him to pay attention to certain prior norms that must be read in light of current law.
In other words, Bertone said, “Go ahead. Prosecute.”
Scarcely anything to fault Ratzinger for here.
So things proceed with the potential canonical trial of Murphy until January 1998 (by which time the case had been transferred to the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, in whose territory Murphy was residing). In this month, Murphy writes his own letter to the CDF.
As you’d expect, he addresses it to Cardinal Ratzinger, and as as you’d expect, Bishop Fliss of Superior (now handling the case) gets a reply from Bertone.
This is the crux letter—where people in the press want to find fault with Cardinal Ratzinger.
There are, again, a number of important things to note:
1) The text of the Murphy letter itself. Mainstream media sources will quote only a sound bite or two (at best; some flat-out misrepresent it), but thanks to the Internet and the NYT’s putting the document online, you can read it for yourself and make your own judgments.
2) In the letter, Murphy asks the CDF to declare the action of the diocese of Superior (to whom the case has been transferred) invalid because the statute to limitations when the crimes were committed has passed. The CDF refuses to do so in Bertone’s reply and suggests that the case be handled in another way (more on that in a moment). The point is: The CDF refuses to invalidate the pending action of the diocese of Superior against Murphy. No ground of faulting Ratzinger there.
3) Murphy also makes a mercy-based request to the CDF not to be subjected to a trial at this point in his life. He writes:
I am seventy-two years of age, your Eminence [Cardinal Ratzinger], and I am in poor health. I have just recently suffered another stroke which has left me in a weakened state. I have followed all the directives of both Archbishop Cousins and now Archbishop Weakland. I have repented of any of my past transgressions, and have been living peaceably in northern Wisconsin for twenty-four years. I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood.
So when the response came from Archbishop Bertone, what did it say?
It did not prohibit a canonical trial. It didn’t say that this couldn’t be done. But it did hint at another path, saying:
[T]his Congregation invites Your Excellency [Raphael Michael Fliss of Superior, WI] to give careful consideration to what canon 1341 proposes as pastoral measures destined to obtain the reparation of scandal and the restoration of justice.
Canon 1341 provides that:
An ordinary is to take care to initiate a judicial or administrative process to impose or declare penalties only after he has ascertained that fraternal correction or rebuke or other means of pastoral solicitude cannot sufficiently repair the scandal, restore justice, reform the offender.
So Bertone urges the relevant ordinary (now Fliss due to the change of diocese in which the trial would occur) to heed what the Code of Canon Law says regarding when to use a judicial process. Criticize the Code if you want, but we don’t have evidence of wrongdoing on Ratzinger’s part.
Note that Bertone doesn’t say Fliss can’t or shouldn’t go forward with the trial. He just says think about this canon and if there is another way to resolve the matter.
In May Fliss concluded that the scandal in the deaf community was such that the trial needed to go forward.
At the very end of the same month, he and Weakland were in Rome for their ad limina visit, and they had a meeting with Bertone about the Murphy case. Ratzinger was not present.
Bertone again did not say that the trial could not proceed. He pointed out certain canonical and practical difficulties it would involve, but he did not prohibit it. He further recommended that Murphy be examined by three psychiatrists, that he be assigned a spiritual director to keep tabs on him, that he be prohibited from doing anything with the deaf community, and that he be allowed to celebrate Mass only with permission given in writing by both Weakland and Fliss.
This seems to be the last action the CDF took on the matter—except for forwarding the minutes of the meeting a few weeks later (July 1998).
The next month, August 1998, Murphy died.
He really was in poor health.
Murphy had written his letter of appeal—the crux letter that the media is up in arms about—in January of 1998 and in August of 1998 he was dead.
One can fault any number of things about process or policy in this case, but we don’t have evidence that Ratzinger did anything in bad conscience. He didn’t stop the trial against Murphy from proceeding. At most (attributing everything to him that Bertone did) he recommended waiving the judicial proceeding due to the man’s advanced age and ill health while simultaneously taking steps to ensure that the man would not be a threat to anyone as he lived out his final months in seclusion.
Civil prosecutors make these kinds of judgments all the time, deciding whether it is really worth it to devote the resources to proceed to a full trial when the accused is elderly, not a threat, and likely to die during the proceedings.
They aren’t portrayed in the press as evil monsters, and from the facts of this case, Pope Benedict shouldn’t either.
Your thoughts?
Whew!
I was getting really annoyed.
According to the Government Accountability Office,
American consumers, businesses, and federal agencies rely on the Energy Star program to identify products that decrease greenhouse emissions and lower energy costs.
Lower energy costs, okay. Lowering greenhouse emissions, ihh.
In addition, the federal government and various states offer tax credits and other incentives to encourage the use of energy-efficient products including Energy Star products. Specifically, approximately $300 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will be used for state rebate programs on energy-efficient products.
Ah. So my tax dollars are underwriting this thing. I want it held accountable! What are you going to do about that?
The Energy Star program, which began in 1992, is overseen jointly by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Nice to know, but again: What are you going to do to hold this government thingie spending my tax dollars to "lower greenhouse emissions" accountable? I want to know!
Given the millions of dollars allocated to encourage use of Energy Star products and concerns that the Energy Star program is vulnerable to fraud and abuse, . . .
My thought exactly!
. . . GAO was asked to conduct proactive testing to (1) obtain Energy Star partnership status for bogus companies and (2) submit fictitious products for Energy Star certification.
Ooooo! This should be interesting!
To perform this investigation, GAO used four bogus manufacturing firms and fictitious individuals to apply for Energy Star partnership and submitted 20 fictitious products with fake energy-savings claims for Energy Star certification.
So . . . our government is admitting . . . to lying . . . to itself?
GAO also reviewed program documents and interviewed agency officials and officials from agency Inspector General (IG) offices.
Okay, but that's less interesting than the government admitting to lying to itself part.
GAO's investigation shows that Energy Star is for the most part a self-certification program vulnerable to fraud and abuse.
I knew it! I knew it! (Just like all that climate science junk.) Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Oh . . . I guess that's the GAO.)
So what happened?
GAO obtained Energy Star certifications for 15 bogus products, including a gas-powered alarm clock.
WOO-HOO!!! Gas-powered alarm clocks! Oh wait . . . it's fake.
Two bogus products were rejected by the program and 3 did not receive a response.
So 75% of the fake products (15 of 20) were approved.
In addition, two of the bogus Energy Star firms developed by GAO received requests from real companies to purchase products because the bogus firms were listed as Energy Star partners. This clearly shows how heavily American consumers rely on the Energy Star brand.
Indeed!
The program is promoted through tax credits and appliance rebates, and federal agencies are required to purchase certain Energy Star certified products.
So . . . you're saying that I could come up with a fake product, get it approved by Energy Star, and then government agencies would be required to purchase it? I mean, not–er–me, but–well–somebody?
GAO found that for our bogus products, certification controls were ineffective primarily because Energy Star does not verify energy-savings data reported by manufacturers.
So you are saying that I–er–someone could do this!
At briefings on GAO's investigation, DOE and EPA officials agreed that the program is currently based on self-certifications by manufacturers.
Does Al Gore know about this? He might want to get in on the action.
However, officials stated there are after-market tests and self-policing that ensure standards are maintained.
Uhhh-huh.
GAO did not test or evaluate controls related to products that were already certified and available to the public.
Be interesting if it did, though.
In addition, prior DOE IG, EPA IG, and GAO reports have found that current Energy Star controls do not ensure products meet efficiency guidelines.
Okay, then.
MORE. (See links to report/highlights at top of page)
There’s a meme going around certain quarters that Republicans are nuts because a massive number of them believe that President Obama may be the antichrist.
I first encountered this on the Drudge Report, which linked to the British paper the Daily Mail, which has a story headlined:
Here’s the entirety of what that article has to say on the antichrist subject:
Nearly a quarter of Republicans believe the Democrat president ‘may be the Antichrist’, according to a survey.
That’s it! No link to the original poll. No clue about how it was run. Nada!
A lot of other people are blogging it without linking it, to which I can only say, “Shame on you. Linking is an essential part of blogging. You’ve got to show people the source so they can make their own judgments. Blogging an inflammatory subject with no link is Just Plain Wrong.”
So I’m not going to do it. Here’s a summary of the Harris Interactive poll at the root of the meme
According to the Harris Interactive group, the poll . . .
. . . finds that 40% of adults believe he is a socialist. More than 30% think he wants to take away Americans’ right to own guns and that he is a Muslim. More than 25% believe he wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a world government, has done many things that are unconstitutional, that he resents America’s heritage, and that he does what Wall Street tells him to do.
More than 20% believe he was not born in the United States, that he is “the domestic enemy the U.S. Constitution speaks of,” that he is racist and anti-American, and that he “wants to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers.” Fully 20% think he is “doing many of the things that Hitler did,” while 14% believe “he may be the anti-Christ” and 13% think “he wants the terrorists to win.”
Among Republicans, the numbers are different:
Majorities of Republicans believe that President Obama:
* Is a socialist (67%)
* Wants to take away Americans’ right to own guns (61%)
* Is a Muslim (57%)
* Wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government (51%); and
* Has done many things that are unconstitutional (55%).Also large numbers of Republicans also believe that President Obama:
* Resents America’s heritage (47%)
* Does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do (40%)
* Was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president (45%)
* Is the “domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitution speaks of” (45%)
* Is a racist (42%)
* Want to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers (41%)
* Is doing many of the things that Hitler did (38%).Even more remarkable perhaps, fully 24% of Republicans believe that “he may be the Anti-Christ” and 22% believe “he wants the terrorists to win.”
While few Democrats believe any of these things, the proportions of Independents who do so are close to the national averages.
What the press release doesn’t tell you, but what is in the poll summary table, is that a surprisingly number of Democrats believe similar things. They proportions are smaller than the above numbers, but significant number of Democrats believe that President Obama:
* Is a socialist (14%)
* Wants to take away Americans’ right to own guns (17%)
* Is a Muslim (15%)
* Wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government (12%).
* Has done many things that are unconstitutional (9%).
* Resents America’s heritage (12%)
* Does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do (15%)
* Was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president (8%)
* Is the “domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitution speaks of” (8%)
* Is a racist (7%)
* Want to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers (8%)
* Is doing many of the things that Hitler did (6%).
* May be the Anti-Christ (6%).
* Wants the terrorists to win (5%).
The Republican party, of course, has a large Evangelical component that is interested in the end-times, inclined to think we are living in them, and thus on the lookout to scope out current political figures with an eye to whether they might be the antichrist. That’s just going to happen to some degree. (Note also: It says “may be” the antichrist, not “is”). It’s like back in the ‘80s when some were suggesting that Ronald Wilson Reagan was the antichrist because he had six letters in each of his three names.
The more surprising number—if any of these numbers were real (more on that in a moment)—is how many Democrats think Obama might be the antichrist. If six percent of your own party think you may be the antichrist, that’s potentially newsworthy.
Rather than the nutty/scary/evil Republican meme, the more newsworthy headline based on these numbers would be something like,
“More Than 1 in 20 Democrats Think Obama May Be Antichrist (And Compare Him To Hitler)”
But are these numbers even real?
The poll was an online one that apparently used leading questions. (It wasn’t the completely unscientific kind of online poll, but it used methodology that is at least questionable.)
So at bottom what it looks like we have is an iffy, leading poll being used to feed the meme of “conservatives have Obama Derangement Syndrome.” (As if we hadn’t just suffered through eight years of Bush Derangement Syndrome.)
When this kind of thing happens, and particularly when it involves religious matters (like who might or might not be the antichrist), it’s important to have a response.
So I wanted to give you the scoop on the poll (including a link! I had to search hard to find that!) and some perspective in case someone throws this your way (and they may; it was on Drudge, after all).
As a final bit of perspective, I’ll say this: Whatever his flaws may be and however profound they may be, President Obama does not fit the model presented in the Bible of the figure commonly referred to as “the antichrist.”
The book of Revelation presents the Beast from the sea (commonly identified with “the antichrist” that John’s epistles speak of, though they may not be the same) as a European monarch who literally demands worship and who puts Christians to death and whose name adds up to 666 in a common alphabetic/numbering system in use at the time. That fits Caesar Nero (right down to the name adding up to 666), but it does not fit President Obama.
Of course, there may well be a future fulfillment of the antichrist archetype (I expect that there will be)—and there is a great deal of liberty of interpretation here since the Church’s teaching in this area is very limited—but we shouldn’t feed the meme identifying President Obama as the antichrist.
Your thoughts?
Not all of them, mind you. But, at least, he’s accused the U.S. bishops and the National Right to Life Committee of hypocrisy.
According to The Daily Caller:
“The [National] Right to Life and the bishops, in 2007 when George Bush signed the executive order on embryonic stem cell research, they all applauded the executive order,” Stupak said in an interview with The Daily Caller.
“The Democratic Congress passed [a bill] saying we’ll do embryonic stem cell research. Bush vetoed it in 2007. That same day he issued an executive order saying we will not do it, and all these groups applauded that he protected life,” Stupak said.
“So now President Obama’s going to sign an executive order protecting life and everyone’s condemning it. The hypocrisy is great,” he said.
To my mind, the addle-headedness of his comments is great.
President Bush, for all his flaws, vetoed a Bad Bill and then issued an executive order to further protect unborn life.
What Stupak did was vote for a Bad Bill with only a hope that the next pro-abort president (or even Obama himself, or the courts) won’t void the executive order he got in exchange for his vote.
Whatever else, Mr. Stupak does not seem gifted in finding good analogies to back up his charges of hypocrisy.
But perhaps he’s just expressing things badly (and offensively).
He goes on to suggest that had he not accepted the offer of the executive order that Mrs. Pelosi would have had the votes for the Bad Bill anyway, and it would have been passed without the executive order to blunt its effects on the unborn.
If so, his flippage on the issue would have been reasonable and praiseworthy (though his accusations of hypocrisy would not).
But is he right?
The bill passed with three votes to spare, 219-to-212.
But the Stupak gang provided more than four votes. Had they not voted for the Bad Bill, on its face it would not have passed.
Could Pelosi have had enough representatives who voted “no” who would have voted “yes” if Stupak hadn’t cut his deal to pass the Bad Bill anyway?
It’s possible, but it doesn’t strike me as plausible (else why make the deal with Stupak’s group?).
On the other hand, Pelosi could have just lied to Stupak about how many votes she had, and Stupak may have been stupid enough to believe her.
The Daily Caller is also running a piece titled Bart Stupak is either not very smart or he’s not very honest.
These certainly seem reasonable hypotheses, particularly given this video from November 2009 (CHT: Fr. Z):
So what do you think? Is Stupak’s reasoning good, bad, both? And what do you make of his charges of hypocrisy?
Just who is the hypocrite, now?