Washington Post's Ben Bradlee dies

[airdvr 210]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/21/us/ben-bradlee-dies/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

A giant back when there was still journalists.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[wmw999 2,593]

There were plenty of people at the time who decried the whole Watergate reporting. They indicated it was drummed up by the press for business, a tempest in a teacup, and/or disloyal to the president. And did I mention that Kennedy had a mistress who wasn't reported, and that reporters were respectful enough during FDR's presidency not to report on the extent of his disability?

It's in retrospect that he gained the respect of many people who used to dislike what he did. But that's the nature of some folks, and why calling a president or much of anyone else best or worst shouldn't happen until some time has passed. Even the Catholic Church has a fifty year requirement for beatification/sainthood (don't remember which)

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jakee 1,599]

Quote

Even the Catholic Church has a fifty year requirement for beatification/sainthood (don't remember which)

Not even close, I'm afraid. They have a 5 year minimum from death to start the investigation into canonisation, but that can be (and recently often has been) waived by the pope. John Paul II is already a saint less than 10 years after his death and Mother Theresa is nearly there.

Interestingly, given that beatification requires one confirmed miracle and sainthood two, JP2 did more in that field than any of his predecessors, beatifying over 1,350 people and canonising nearly 500 of them, so that's almost 2,000 genuine miracles recognised. Which goes to show that however reasonable he may have seemed at the time*, he was probably also at least a little bit mental.


* Apart from the homophobia and sex abuse cover ups, obvs.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Interestingly, given that beatification requires one confirmed miracle and sainthood two, JP2 did more in that field than any of his predecessors, beatifying over 1,350 people and canonising nearly 500 of them, so that's almost 2,000 genuine miracles recognised. Which goes to show that however reasonable he may have seemed at the time*, he was probably also at least a little bit mental.

I'd give first presumption that it was mainly out of practical political considerations.
Here's an interesting article on the subject: John Paul II, Oscar Romero and the politics of making saints

[jakee 1,599]

OK - cynical, unbelieving liar then. Works for me either way

(Although that article is more about the halting of canonisation proceedings for political reasons, rather than the pursuit of them. Which leaves open the intriguing idea that the Vatican top brass think there are even more bona fide miracle workers out there than they recognise, they just don't happen to like all of them.)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 2]

jakee

OK - cynical, unbelieving liar then. Works for me either way

(Although that article is more about the halting of canonisation proceedings for political reasons, rather than the pursuit of them. Which leaves open the intriguing idea that the Vatican top brass think there are even more bona fide miracle workers out there than they recognise, they just don't happen to like all of them.)

I think more political pragmatist. Popes on the one hand tend to convey recognitions to those who might be consistent with their own philosophy, in order to stamp their imprimatur on the institution. And on the other hand, they're also conveyed to impart a degree of balance, the better to control (or at least placate) the widest cross-section as possible or to accommodate coalition alliances. By comparison, this is done in secular politics all the time. For example, in the US, a president's philosophical influence can (and does) live on for decades after he leaves office via his appointments to the federal judiciary. (While at the same time, he always appoints a certain number of judges from the opposing party, again for various practical political considerations.)

[jakee 1,599]

Quote

I think more political pragmatist.

I think the point you're missing is that saints, unlike judges, must have performed miracles. Them's the rools - genuine divine intervention channelled through a person to achieve the impossible. JP2 either believed that or he didn't. If he believed there were thousands of people out there performing genuine miracles then he was at least a little bit mental. If he was, for political reasons, canonising people that he didn't believe had performed miracles then he was a cynical liar. That's the long and short of it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 2]

jakee

Quote

I think more political pragmatist.

I think the point you're missing is that saints, unlike judges, must have performed miracles. Them's the rools - genuine divine intervention channelled through a person to achieve the impossible. JP2 either believed that or he didn't. If he believed there were thousands of people out there performing genuine miracles then he was at least a little bit mental. If he was, for political reasons, canonising people that he didn't believe had performed miracles then he was a cynical liar. That's the long and short of it.

I'm not missing the point. The process of rationalizing bridges the gap between belief and cynicism.
You're also missing the difference between the effect of a lifetime of intense social and psychological indoctrination (read: religious beliefs) and being a little bit mental.

[jakee 1,599]

Quote

I'm not missing the point. The process of rationalizing bridges the gap between belief and cynicism.

That you'd compare the process to judicial appointments tells me you are. Putting someone on the bench doesn't mean you're saying they're the single best legal mind out there, or that they can think through problems beyond the ken of mortal lawyers. Canonising someone means that they were a miracle worker and they will be worshipped, even made the object of arduous pilgrimages, by a lot of people. It's not a popularity contest or a case of being good enough, it's miracle or no miracle. If the Pope thinks not but canonises anyway it's grossly cynical.

Quote

You're also missing the difference between the effect of a lifetime of intense social and psychological indoctrination (read: religious beliefs) and being a little bit mental.

Difference?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 2]

Nope, you haven't convinced me. Nor have you rebutted my point. Therefore, you lose.
You do, however, get points for evading my point.

[airdvr 210]

wmw999

There were plenty of people at the time who decried the whole Watergate reporting. They indicated it was drummed up by the press for business, a tempest in a teacup, and/or disloyal to the president. And did I mention that Kennedy had a mistress who wasn't reported, and that reporters were respectful enough during FDR's presidency not to report on the extent of his disability?

It's in retrospect that he gained the respect of many people who used to dislike what he did. But that's the nature of some folks, and why calling a president or much of anyone else best or worst shouldn't happen until some time has passed. Even the Catholic Church has a fifty year requirement for beatification/sainthood (don't remember which)

Wendy P.

I'm not saying he was that good.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[jakee 1,599]

Quote

Nope, you haven't convinced me. Nor have you rebutted my point. Therefore, you lose.
You do, however, get points for evading my point.

Negativo, hombre. I responded to your points, but that post doesn't even refer to what I said. Looks like you're down for the count.

(Unless you'd like to give an example of how to rebut 'rationalising bridges the gap between belief and cynicism'? It's a phrase so meaningless you could put it in a book of management jargon.)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,121]

> If he believed there were thousands of people out there performing genuine
>miracles then he was at least a little bit mental.

Or he has a different definition of "genuine miracle" than you do.

[jakee 1,599]

billvon

> If he believed there were thousands of people out there performing genuine
>miracles then he was at least a little bit mental.

Or he has a different definition of "genuine miracle" than you do.

Healing Parkinson's through a picture? Removing brain tumours with a touch? Levitating? Failing to decompose? Curing TB?

Make no mistake, the definition of a miracle in these matters is exactly what it sounds like. A freakin' miracle.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,156]

jakee

***> If he believed there were thousands of people out there performing genuine
>miracles then he was at least a little bit mental.

Or he has a different definition of "genuine miracle" than you do.

Healing Parkinson's through a picture? Removing brain tumours with a touch? Levitating? Failing to decompose? Curing TB?

Make no mistake, the definition of a miracle in these matters is exactly what it sounds like. A freakin' miracle.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from divinity. (With apologies to Arthur C. Clarke)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,121]

>Healing Parkinson's through a picture? Removing brain tumours with a touch?
>Levitating? Failing to decompose? Curing TB?

Yes, removing brain tumors with a touch is a good one. A religious extremist might say that it was because soon-to-be-St Joe touched him. A doctor might say that he went into spontaneous remission which happens in a tiny number of cases. The guy with the tumor (heck, even the Pope) might consider that a miracle.

[jakee 1,599]

Quote

The guy with the tumor (heck, even the Pope) might consider that a miracle...

... directly attributable to the intercession of the soon to be canonized guy.

You making my point for me or what?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JerryBaumchen 1,469]

Hi bill,

Quote

Yes, removing brain tumors with a touch is a good one.

OK, can you ( or anyone ) tell me what in the H*** any of this has to do with Ben Bradlee dieing?

How about you delete all of these religious/sainthood posts & we get back to the subject at hand?

Thanks,

Jerry Baumchen

[jakee 1,599]

Quote

we get back to the subject at hand?

Is there much to say? He edited a newspaper, he was obviously good at his job, and now he's died - which is very sad but time stands for no man.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,156]

JerryBaumchen

Hi bill,

Quote

Yes, removing brain tumors with a touch is a good one.

OK, can you ( or anyone ) tell me what in the H*** any of this has to do with Ben Bradlee dieing?

How about you delete all of these religious/sainthood posts & we get back to the subject at hand?

Thanks,

Jerry Baumchen

Thread drift happens.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.