ABC, CBS Ignore Appointment of Tim Scott to Senate

Monday, ABC and CBS completely ignored the announced appointment of Rep. Tim Scott to the U. S. Senate.  There was not a mention of it on their main evening “news” broadcasts.

This is slightly strange.  For historic reasons alone, the appointment is newsworthy, a “You were there” moment if you will:

We … have a Senate seat that is famed for having once been occupied by Strom Thurmond, a one-time Dixiecrat, segregationist turned repentant Republican. And we have the first black Senator from a southern state since Blanche Bruce of Mississippi in 1881. This is almost "diversity" overload.

Perhaps one mitigating factor for the old networks is that all of this "diversity" was wrought by Republicans?

Ah, and that’s the rub.  In the liberal/left mindset, Republicans don’t do “diversity” even though, as I pointed out yesterday, this a great appointment for genuine diversity.

But remember Republicans don’t do diversity.  So this goes the way of the accomplishments of “non-persons” in the old Soviet Union.  As far as Pravda was concerned, they and their accomplishments did not exist.  And news that did not serve Marxism was not “news” at all.

But surely the “mainstream” news media here would never get that corrupt.

---

MORE: Not all of the mainstream “news” media are ignoring the Scott appointment.  The New York Times presents the usual garbage unfit to print.

I honestly do not know which is worse.

Senator Tim Scott (and a prediction 32 years ago?)

I am very pleased to see that Rep. Tim Scott will be appointed to replace retiring Senator Jim DeMint.   He will be a strong advocate of conservative Constitutional values in the Senate.  And that he happens to be Black will increase his stature, his voice, and his impact that much more.  This is the kind of diversity this nation needs.

I am reminded of The Spike (1980), a novel I read decades ago.  In it, there is a Black Republican Senator from South Carolina.  It took a while, but fiction has become reality . . . in a good way for a change.

Habemus Tweetum!

The Pope has begun tweeting!

Union Thugs & Obama vs. Free Speech UPDATED

The heart of the fight over Right-to-Work in Michigan is generally overlooked – it is a free speech issue.  Unions want to be able to continue to extract forced dues from workers as a condition of employment and then spend those dues on political causes, namely the Democrat Party of course, regardless of the political consciences of those workers.  

That is tyranny.  Saying someone has free speech but then forcing them to fund Democrat (or Republican) political campaigns or lose their jobs is not free speech at all.   And don’t take my word on it.

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. – Thomas Jefferson

Right-to-Work laws end this union tyranny . . . which is exactly why unions have engaged in violence in opposition to the new Michigan Right-to-Work law.

And let there be no doubt of the Left’s hatred of free speech (the freedom of speech of their opponents, of course).  Union thugs tore down an Americans for Prosperity tent.  And Obama has attacked the Michigan Right-to-Work law (and has not condemned the union violence there).

I never thought I’d live to see a Right-to-Work law being passed in Michigan of all places.  They are to be congratulated for standing up to the union thugs and to Obama and for standing up for the free speech of workers.

----

MORE: In taking down that tent, union thugs willfully endangered lives:

As the union members attacked the Americans For Prosperity tent, a woman cried out “there are people under there, oh my God” (at 1:20). At 1:40, as union members start walking on top of the collapsed tent, a man shouted “hey, there are people in there” but again the crowd didn’t stop, and the union members continued walking on the collapsed tent defiantly as the crowd shouted obscenities and cheered.

+Ebbsfleet on General Synod

Jonathan Baker, the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, has a talent for telling it like it is yet with grace.  Having spent some time with him at Pusey House, he has long impressed me with his gentleness, wit, and perception.

So it comes as no surprise that his comments on General Synod and its aftermath are among the best I’ve come across.  I commend his whole missive to you.  But the following stands out to me as cutting through the fog to explain what really happened:

First, it has been suggested that the draft Measure represented the fruits of work done over many years by representatives of all traditions in the Church of England, and that it was a compromise and the best possible way forward. This is simply not the case, as anyone – myself included – involved in the various processes of preparing the legislation for Final Approval (the legislative drafting group, the revision committee stage, and so on) would have to admit. At every step of the way, provision for the traditionalist minority was withdrawn altogether or significantly watered down. Looking back, we can see a number of decisive forks in the road: when delegation (rather than a transfer of jurisdiction) was adopted as the basis for the legislation; when the Archbishops' amendment for co-ordinate jurisdiction was defeated – by just 5 votes in the House of Clergy – in 2010; when the amendment to Clause 5.1. (c) of the Measure, proposed by the House of Bishops, was withdrawn in the face of pressure from members of WATCH in July of this year. In the light of all this, it seems to me that there is only one analysis of the vote on 20th November which rings true: that the draft Measure was driven 'over the cliff' by those unwilling to agree proper provision for those of us who have conscientious difficulties concerning the ordination of women.

Exactly.  +Ebbsfleet says it much more graciously than I have, but, indeed, WATCH and their ilk have only themselves to blame for the failure of women bishops legislation.  If they only had the grace to give traditionalists the space they needed, women bishops would already be on the way.

No Infallible Tweets (Darn it.)

Pope Benedict may have a twitter account, and he is expected to begin tweeting on December 12^th.  But there will be no infallible tweets:

Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli, president of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications told the press conference the pope’s tweets would not be “dogmatic positions” nor infallabile statements on Catholic doctrine and dogma. The pope’s followers would receive “pearls of wisdom” from the 85 year old pontiff.

“Pearls of wisdom” are nice and all, but, c’mon, can’t we have some infallibility to liven twitter up?  Or how about some excommunications?  Are excommunications via twitter too much to ask for?

Pope Benedict XVI Joins Twitter

Pope Benedict has now officially joined twitter, though he has not actually tweeted yet.  I wonder if any of his tweets will be infallible?

Anyway, with fake pope accounts here and there, there is some confusion as to which account is the real Pope . . . which sounds rather like the history of the church.  Anyway, His Holiness’s account is @Pontifex.  I like that name.

I wonder how Pope Benedict will fit into twitter.  It’s a rough and tumble place, to put it mildly.  And it very much has its ugly side, including knee-jerk pope hatred (LANGUAGE WARNING).

I, for one, welcome Pope Benedict to twitter and encourage him not to let the jerks get him down.