User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.6528 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 30, 2010 at 03:54 PM (#3488675)I suppose being the father of an 11-year-old girl might have something to do with that assessment.
Especially considering that Disney's artistic peak in terms of humor was somewhere in the mid-1930's, and has been going steadily downhill ever since.
What is scary is that apparently Mickey Mouse is, in many parts of the world, not even the most popular 'classic' Disney has. Donald Duck and his family are more popular than Mickey in parts of Europe, for example.
/former altar boy (never touched - but a priest at my parish hung himself when the heat was closing in)
/and former Disneyland <strike>employee</strike> "cast member"
You should see the deal Disney struck with Florida lawmakers to get WDW off the ground. It's not much of an exaggeration to say Disney could decide to power its property with a nuclear reactor and the state couldn't do anything to stop it.
Actually, we're already pretty well acquainted
/Eucharistic minister/husband of Catholic School principal/father of two altar servers.
This is, indeed, only a slight exaggeration. I think that it is also true that (in the past at least) Disney has actually been able to stop ambulance and police cars from entering the parks, worried that it would disturb the visitors (nevermind the fact that Granny is dying of a heart-attack in Fantasyland).
I compare Disney to Hot Dogs: it is generally good tasting and fun, but you really wish you didn't know how it was made.
Because if you say the words rather than just the letters, the definite article is necessary.
"The National Football League scores a touchdown with Disney." No problem.
"The National Basketball Association is a slam dunk with Disney." Sounds fine.
"The Ohio State University scores straight A's with Disney." A little stiff, maybe, but not bad.
"The Major League Baseball hits a home run with Disney." WTF?
Because it isn't MBL.
And Epic Mickey, which is due out in September.
Because when you remove the modifiers, it's "The - - League", "The - - Association" and even "The - - University".
In the case of MLB, "The - - Baseball" doesn't quite work.
"Hey everybody, let's go watch the baseball."
And yet, Mike Greenberg has a nationwide radio audience.
Mickey Mouse has a show on Disney that is quite popular. A recent survey of children under the age of two in my household shows a 100% approval rating.
Unlike the NFL, the NBA, and the NHL, until recently MLB was made up of two quasi-independent leagues (yes, the NFL and the NBA had mergers, but they combined multiple leagues into one rather than keep two seperate leagues). So it's correct to say "the National League", but not "the Major League Baseball", because "Major League Baseball" is referring to multiple entities.
This is not technically correct. They had some House of Mouse show for little kids that ran a few years ago (Wiki tells me 2001 though 2003). Wiki also tells me there was something called Mickey Mouse Clubhouse in 2006. And they've done some DTV Christmas specials, as well. And the "Runaway Brain" short was only fifteen years ago.
The same survey conducted in my household produced identical results. "Handy Manny" also received a 100% approval rating.
It's amazing what you can get away with in polite society. Good to see some forms of bigotry are still AOK.
Can you imagine the reaction if GS4RB says "the Jews say hi" instead.
Your analogy misses the mark by a fairly substantial bit. "The Catholic Church" refers to a corporate entity, or at least it does by how I read the sentence. "The Jews" refers to a group of people. Note that he didn't say "The Catholics".
Anti-Catholic bigotry still exists, but I'm not seeing it here.
Just which prominent rabbis are under fire for turning a blind eye toward rampant child molestation for decades? I guessed we all missed those headlines.
That's a rather lawerly dodge.
The Catholic Church refers to all members of the Catholic Church. I'm part of "The Catholic Church".
Tarring 1 billion members of a religion with the crimes of a few is no more acceptable b/c they happen to have a hierarchy. The tenets of the religion require a hierarchy.
There is no actual corporate entity called the "Catholic Church". Every see, every parish, every religious order is a separate legal entity.
Epic Mickey? What, in the grim darkness of the far future there is only Disney?
There have been numerous stories of sex abuse by rabbis, at least here in NY. In fact sex abuse is equally prevalent among rabbis, Protestant ministers, and school teachers as it is priests. It just doesn't get the same national coverage.
There are two reasons for this, IMHO. 1) The Catholic Church has deep pockets, so lawyers have an incentive to raise a stink. Suing a small unafiliated congregation gets you nothing, and you can't sue the gov't. 2) The Catholic Church is the most prominent exponent of traditional sexual morality, causing thos who oppose traditional sexual morality to want to tear it down.
No, he was tarring the corporate entity, which is a body that is allowed to own property, operate as a sovereign state, and is otherwise a legal construct duly recognized as such by pretty much every other entity that needs to.
But focus on your umbrage instead of the second part of my comment, which makes the distinction between "The Catholics", which refers to those who self-identify and are recognized as such, and the institutional church.
Regarding your last statement, a corporation is typically made up of a parent and subsidiaries. While there may be a subtle legal distinction between the Catholic Church and its subsidiaries versus, say, Waste Management Inc and its subsidiaries, I think that's trivial for the purposes of this distinction.
That's some lawyerly hair-splitting, though. FWIW, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to be one. I'm also a non-practicing, non-self-hating Catholic, too.
Mickey Mouse Clubhouse - Disney Channel series 2006/2007
House of Mouse - Disney Channel series 2001/2002
Mickey Mouse Works -Disney Channel series 1999/2000
I'd guess most of today's kid's have seen new Mickey Mouse cartoons.
House of Mouse - Disney Channel series 2001/2002
Mickey Mouse Works -Disney Channel series 1999/2000
Huh. Learn something new every day.
Disney has also been agressive in recent years with their Walt Disney Treasures DVD sets and other lower price cartoon collections (typically in the $10 to $15 range). They've been putting a respectable amount of effort into pushing their old cartoons in readily available formats.
Fixed that for you.
The Catholic Church refers to all members of the Catholic Church. I'm part of "The Catholic Church".
I think it was clear he was referring to the institution, not the people. Like when people criticize the actions of "America", they mean the US government, not you and me, or when I say "the Royals are idiots", I mean Dayton Moore, not the guy that takes my ticket.
We have a good idea. Read the John Jay report.
Fixed that for you.
That's cute. Of course I'm referring to declaring abortion, homosexual behavior, fornication, adultery, contraception, etc. sinful.
I don't see how the sins and crimes of some individuals warrant hatred and bigotry towards the whole institution.
There is some truth to both of those, but they're small potatoes compared to;
3. The Catholic Church, on a widespread and systemic basis, enabled and covered up the sexual abuse of children.
The Church deserves every bit of the scorn and opprobrium they're getting, and then some.
Fine. Then be sure you say the public schools of America, and the Protestant Churches, and the Temples and Synagogues are "evil institutions". Because they have just as many sexual deviants as the Catholic Church.
At least the Catholic Church has largely gotten its act together in screening for and dealing with these problems. Schools and the teachers unions still protect school teachers who prey on students.
Tarring 1 billion members of a religion with the crimes of a few is no more acceptable b/c they happen to have a hierarchy. The tenets of the religion require a hierarchy.
There is no actual corporate entity called the "Catholic Church". Every see, every parish, every religious order is a separate legal entity.
This is a fair set of distinctions, but I think we can all agree that Gold Star was making a joke that referred to Church leadership and not to the church body as a whole.
One problem down, only 73289 more to go!
Those aren't singular institutions.
Big time.
At some point, the guy molesting small children loses the gravitas needed to declare the sexual preferences of others sinful.
Fine. Then be sure you say the public schools of America, and the Protestant Churches, and the Temples and Synagogues are "evil institutions". Because they have just as many sexual deviants as the Catholic Church.
At least the Catholic Church has largely gotten its act together in screening for and dealing with these problems. Schools and the teachers unions still protect school teachers who prey on students.
I'm going to need a source here. Any source really, other than the catholic apologist's handbook.
"Hey, screening has determined that the priest in this area is molesting boys."
"We will now deal with this problem by moving him to another area where no one knows him."
What the Catholic church organisation has done is definitely "evil" as said in #8. That's not "anti-Catholic bigotry" it's just plain facts.
Snapper, your reaction here has been embarassing to me, as a Catholic. You should be ashamed.
You are objectively pro-Saddam.
The Disney Channel also airs some of the old cartoon shorts in the pseudo-commercial breaks of their morning Playhouse Disney block (outside of promos for other Disney Channel shows they rarely air "commercials" as such, although arguably most of the actual programming serves as a pretty good commercial for the associated merchandising.)
Since when is that? And why would anyone sue the government because a priest molested a child? Do we sue the Catholic church if the government makes a proven false arrest?
2) The Catholic Church is the most prominent exponent of traditional sexual morality, causing those who oppose traditional sexual morality to want to tear it down.
I suppose there's some truth to that, but it's hardly a motivation that's unique to this particular dispute. Of course actions that counter repeated proclamations of moral judgment of others are bound to cause a certain amount of glee when the shoe is on the other foot. And needless to say, institutions that often seem to make judging others their sole mission in life (or at least in politics) are going to suffer the most humiliation when they don't live up to their proclamations of piety.
That said, IMO it's strictly up to the Church to clean up its own mess. If it does a good job of it, the scandals will eventually pass into history. But if it continues to sweep this sort of crime under the rug, then it shouldn't be surprised if its proclamations of piety and moral judgment are seen by outsiders (and by many Catholics themselves) as little more than sanctimonious prattle. It's up to Pope Benedict to determine which way this thing will go. He's the Boss.
This, btw, was the best post of the thread. RDF.
And just to join in: The issue is not the criminal action of individual priests. The issue is the reaction by Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals and others within the Church to the knowledge of their criminal actions, which reaction consisted almost exclusively of protecting and/or enabling the offender (by moving him around), evasion and equivocation, until they were forced to face up the issue by lawsuits and government investigations. The corporate Church, from Rome on down, was far more interested in protecting its position and wealth than it was in providing redress or succor to the victims. In this, it acted pretty much like every other corporation would in the situation. That is not, however, exactly the moral high ground that the Church claimed for itself.
And don't get me started on the Inquisition!
But they confessed their transgressions to the Superintendent, it isn't fair to still hold that against them.
Didn't see that one coming.
-tip of the hat to HW
Although now that I think about, some of the Eastern Churches have to be taken into consideration..which reminds me that I need to read a really good history of Japanese Shinto and Buddhism outfits. Anybody got one for me?
Nice 40K reference there!
If I were an anti-Church cynic, I might point out that the corporate Church, from Rome on down, has always been far more interested in protecting its position and wealth than in providing actual service or support. And thus this particular child molestation scandal of the past few decades, grotesquely horrible as it is, hasn't been particularly shocking.
Good thing I'm not such a cynic.
I think you meant, "If I were an anti-Church ignoramus," because this is staggeringly uncharitable and false. I have no idea what "the corporate Church" is supposed to mean, but the historic Catholic Church which certainly has been guilty of many things and will continue to be into the future this side of the eschaton has also been the source, financial, moral, and otherwise, of a great deal of "actual service and support." I believe you live in San Francisco. I imagine it wouldn't be too hard for you to find a Catholic hospital or two, or parishes and religious communities providing actual service and support to the indigent in your community.
Santa Clara, actually, a more Catholic town than San Francisco.
Dude, I was born in a Catholic hospital. My wife worked in one as a nurse for years. I have a degree from a Jesuit university. My in-laws are nearly all Catholics.
I'm quite familiar the institution and its instruments. Much of the work these instruments provide is wonderful.
That doesn't change the larger fact, however, that the Catholic Church is and always has been primarily interested in protecting its position and wealth, both of which are stupendous.
What institution or organization behaves in the manner you deem laudatory? Does some Protestant sect do it? Muslims? Mormons? Buddhists? Jews? Democrats? Republicans? Insurance companies? Masons? The KKK? NOW? The NAACP? Bill Clinton? Geo. W. Bush? Mother Theresa? Ralph Nader? Who?
How would such an organization, institution, or individual behave with such altruism--and survive? And why should it risk its survival? Do you know of any institution, group, or organization that is not more interested in protecting its position and furthering its interest? And if we believe that is a good policy, how do we go about making it effective? Institutionalize it through some law or political agency? Or is just waxing righteous (disproval based on a superior if inconsistently applied standards of sensibility) enough?
And I'm not engaging in rhetorical cynicism. I'm not auditioning for the Claude Rains role in a remake of Casablanca. I'm simply interested, so I ask: how do you meet those specifications in the real world? Granted, the Catholic Church is far removed from the young tart it once was; it's more like an old, but expert, whore, with some tricks still left up her sleeve (so to speak) and a few maneuvers to astonish and even delight the boyishly impressionable and suitably socially arrested to stay marketable for a while longer (thus its appeal to former roués and reformed reprobates like Graham Greene and Evelyn Waugh, and the woefully culturally deprived, as sociologists used to say), but does that make it really categorically different somehow?
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Although now that I think about, some of the Eastern Churches have to be taken into consideration..which reminds me that I need to read a really good history of Japanese Shinto and Buddhism outfits.
While you'll find some evil here and there (see <u>Zen at War</u> by Brian Victoria), you won't find much concentrated evil. Buddhist schools split and fracture almost by nature. Shintoism was basically widely disparate local superstitions and traditions until someone in the turn of the century categorized it all under Shintoism. There's "State Shinto" (now defunct), which was the "national religion" of pre-war Japan, but even that is less a religion than an excuse to teach Japanese origin mythology in schools.
The Catholic Church has deep pockets
Every single Catholic is stinking rich?
Or are Catholics a Borg-like entity?
Point being, you just did what the original post did -- you distinguished between Catholics and the Catholic Church. See how natural that seemed? Nobody's suing you personally snapper (unless you're an archbishop!) and nobody's calling you personally a child molester nor accusing you of covering up sex abuse.
The Catholic Church is the most prominent exponent of traditional sexual morality, causing thos who oppose traditional sexual morality to want to tear it down.
Oh now that's just silly. The first part is debatable within the US (the vocal protestants and the politicians certainly have gotten more press over the last 30 years) but presumably is true for most of the rest of the world. The second part is ludicrous. If you want to claim that seeing those who claim higher sexual morality being brought down through sexual immorality is a form of "entertaining hypocrisy" to some (Jimmy Swaggart and the other guy writ large) you'd have a defensible point. But the notion that the abused kids who are finally going public and suing the church "oppose traditional sexual morality" is ... I can't think of a kind word.
But, yes, the world of public opinion is often cruel to hypocrites.
How would such an organization, institution, or individual behave with such altruism--and survive? And why should it risk its survival?
you've read the gospels? I don't recall "turn the other cheek unless it puts your real estate holdings at risk" or "the meek shall inherit the earth but the Church should be rich so it can shepherd those meek souls to salvation."
Why should the Catholic Church (or a Protestant sect or a Jewish temple or, for that matter, a jazz festival) behave differently than other corporations? Because they established themselves to serve a moral (or artistic or educational) purpose by following and promoting a set of beliefs that they supposedly place above all other callings/codes/etc. For them to be just like every other corporation, even when that entails violating their own moral code, is hardly surprising but it's pretty indefensible. (ya gotta go for "the ends justify the means" which would be a strange argument for a Christian to make.)
In fact, in the US, they get major tax breaks precisely because they're not supposed to act exactly like other corporations.
On the other hand, I fully support monasteries who raise revenue by brewing great beers -- Protestants and Jews suck at that! (I don't mean to say that all protestants suck at brewing beer, just not as a monasterial activity. :-)
Since we're declaring allegiances -- (raised) Episcopalian ... we managed to avoid offending anybody for over 400 years by basically not standing for anything ... then (mainly in the US) we had the silly notion that women and gays might be equally qualified to lead parishes as heterosexual men. Now we're all kerfuffle. But at least we hire nannies to take care of the kids then send them off to boarding school so we don't have to deal with them ... so I assume we don't have a lot of sex abuse scandals. (or maybe there are more Episcopalian boarding schools than I think!)
When you have a pre-teen girl in the household, the answer will become evident.
Yet.
No. That's exactly the point.
In fact, in the US, they get major tax breaks precisely because they're not supposed to act exactly like other corporations.
Precisely. And yet they do, which is indeed hardly surprising, but pretty indefensible.
I always love this argument, because I've heard it offered frequently in defense of the Catholic Church's refusal to excommunicate Adolph Hitler - why, the Nazis would just steamroll into the Vatican and give Der Papen ein poundin'!
Either you're Christ's representative on earth, or you're the CEO of Cathlico LLC. Can't be both.
Yep. And when time and again you act like the latter, you shouldn't be surprised that you don't gain a lot credibility on your claims to the former.
Thirteen times, the Pope has been Innocent.
When you were in high school and the girls took you parking, and you told them you just wanted to kiss, they believed that? You believed that? And you were surprised and outraged when you found yourself ravished, right?
What we avow and how we act--well, as the poet says, "falls the shadow". Since when has what Jesus said strictly bound officaldom to anything? What person or entity doesn’t try to have it both ways? People, and their institutions, have a way of proclaiming a principle while acting to subvert it to their ends at the same time.
The Catholic Church is no different than any other institution created by the character of man is my point--do you disagree about that point was what I asked? Is it just that we choose to display ire toward some and give others a pass because of social identification? Or are we serious about really having some institutionalized higher principles?
Well, that's what they say, yes? And we, naifs that we are (for our self-interest, maybe) pretend to believe them in significant part. But, really, are they that different. Tobacca companies once told you that their product was healthful in all sorts of ways.
Well, there are different ways of acting indefensibly, and, yes, that's one of them. But, is it really any different? Isn't it all about finding a niche in the ecology, social or otherwise, to make your little living?
Good observation. And that should tell you something about why it is not any different. But you don’t the answer the question, do you?
Take Lutherans and the ELCA. They don't garner all that much controversy because they are small and try to do what they believe their mission to be. They don't compare in power to the Catholic Church, but that really isn't their mission. Now I just brought them up because that's the church I was raised in, but I would guess that applies to a fair number of other Protestant groups. It may apply to other religions as well, but I don't have much exposure to them.
Please note that even within Lutherans, there can be vast differences between the conservative (and that may be too tame a word) Synods that exist and that are separate from the ELCA.
The extraordinary thing about Hollywood, I think, with regard to the issue of doctrinal purity, was that because the hands-on movers and shakers (let's forget about the back-east money that buttressed Hollywood for a long time, for the nonce) were Jews (see An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood) a secular humanism was promoted and pervaded the mainstream culture--mainly through the influence of Hollywood (and other influential institutional organs). Hollywood secular humanism was a matter of reducing Christianity to its bedrock altruistic and mythical essentials without Christ-divinity. Either it wasn't emphasized or it was homogenized way beyond the strictly sectarian. Smart, that, given the overt and implicit strictures of the culture, even if it may have been reflexive and unconscious. They took what they could abide that appealed to them, what they could stomach and what they knew would appeal to their overwhelmingly Christian audiences--all without having to go that extra ecclesiastical step. These movers and shakers had to make big-time compromises on their strict folk heritage, but in doing so they, almost as if with sleight of hand, forced the ultimate compromise on mainstream religious sensibilities. The result--voila: humanism in quick real time.
I'm surely not alone here, as this seems to be the reading of many Protestant groups.
A nice little soiciological artifact:
Donald the Nazi
Donald the UnLibertarian Loves Taxes
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main