To me–a Mormon–Protocol of the Elders by Yair Rosenberg is a welcome relief from the myriad uninformed, and sometimes deluded, stories by those who dare tell of–yea, expose–the mysterious world of Mormonism. Sally Denton is one of the latter and one who Rosenberg quotes a few times before he writes of her “specious argument.”
Tellingly, the sort of specious argument that Salon’s Denton makes about the perils of Mormon theocracy is exactly the sort of conspiracy theory that the same publication rightly denounces when it comes from Robert Spencer about Muslims and the threat of creeping Sharia. The latter narrative is clearly seen as false, but the equally problematic nature of the anti-Mormon argument is obscured by partisan blinders.
Sadly, Sally has been spreading her spurious conspiracy claptrap for some time now. I first heard of her when American Heritage magazine gave her the last few pages of one issue to peddle her poorly researched and very biased account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. She now has a book out about how the Right plotted against FDR–and apparently loves to draw parallels between that day and this (she was on NPR peddling her book the other day–NPR! What were they thinking?). I guess America loves a secret exposed–so to speak. Just look at Sally’s bio at American Heritage:
Sally Denton is an investigative reporter and author who writes about America’s hidden history. She has written six books, including her most recent, Pink Lady: The Many Lives of Helen Gahagan Douglas, released in 2009. She was honored with the Woodrow Wilson Public Scholar Fellowship in 2010, and entered the Nevada Writers Hall of Fame in 2008. (emphasis mine)
Sorry, but you’re going to have to find links to Sally’s sad oeuvre by yourself. I’ve already given her more publicity than she deserves–and nobody reads my blog. I will, however, give you a link to a review of her very bad book on Mountain Meadows.
So I”m reading my Twitter feed again, and I see this by the Washington Post:
The Washington Post @washingtonpost Man seated next to crying child on plane opens door, deploys emergency slide:
I click on the accompanying link and read the first body paragraph:
HANOI, Vietnam — A mom with a screaming child wanted a quick getaway from a plane on the tarmac in Vietnam and asked for help. The man next to her obliged by opening the emergency exit and triggering the escape slide.
But that’s as far as they got.
Do you see the problem? The headline gives the impression that we’re going to get a great story about a man doing what everybody has wanted to do once a baby starts crying on the airline. But no. The story is really about how an apparently kind man helped a stressed mother who was looking for a quick exit for her and her crying baby.
In this case, no harm, no foul. Yes, I was disappointed that the story didn’t live up to its headline, but that’s it. But how about this headline: Romney on Birth Control, or worse, the Tweet the lead me to it, both by David Frum:
davidfrum @davidfrum Endorsed “greatly expanded programs of …. family planning services to all those who want but can’t afford them.”
Yes, I know Frum was being cute, but was he being fair? Did he have an obligation to be fair, especially in this birth-control charged moment? You be the judge.
So on my Twitter feed this morning, I read this:
David F. Mitchell @dfmitchell330 @EdMorrissey [Romney] just panders to everybody all the time. While he’s criticizing Rick, he’s “considering” him for VP. Story of his career!
And just a couple of Tweets later, I find Byron York saying:
Byron York @ByronYork Seeking votes in Michigan, Romney says Massachusetts is home. ow.ly/96SaD
And:
Byron York @ByronYork Romney is asked: ‘Tigers or Red Sox?’ Answer: ‘Oh, Red Sox, I’m afraid. I’ve lived in Massachusetts for how many years now? Forty years.’
Who’s right? If you’re pandering, you’re going with the Tigers in Michigan. If you’re pandering, you’re not saying you call Massachusetts home when you’re seeking the votes of Michiganders, especially when you could truthfully call Michigan home. And didn’t Romney speak out against subsidies in Iowa and fail to Gingrich on the space program in Florida? Has he ever said something that sounded like pandering? Certainly. Was it actually pandering on Romney’s part or wishful thinking on his critics’s part?
I’ve been blogging for Mint.com. Here’s my most recent piece, quoting, among others, my son David Taggart of www.themacrotrader.com. Enjoy.
I get the initial concern, even the outrage, over the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’s (the Mormons) practice of posthumous baptism of the dead. What I don’t get is the outrage after the practice has been explained, time and time again. But with hope in my heart, I’ll give it another shot:
1. Nobody, not even the dead, is forced to join the Mormon Church. Yes, we perform proxy baptisms in our temples on behalf of those who died without baptism, but it is part and parcel of our belief that those on the other side retain their free will and can accept or reject the baptism.
2. In response to complaints from the Jewish community, the Church had long ago stopped baptizing Holocaust victims, except in rare instances. In fact, “the policy of the Church is that members can request these baptisms only for their own ancestors.”
3. Mr. Weisel was never baptized.
4. Bottom line, the doctrine of proxy baptism is a doctrine of love and certainly not one of force. Moreover, the Church has bent over backwards in its efforts to explain the doctrine to concerned individuals and to accommodate those concerns without repudiating a core doctrine of the Church.
I hope this helps.
I support Romney. To me, he’s far and away the most competent and experienced person to run for President in, like, forever. I won’t review his resume here in detail–2001 Olympics, Governor, Bain, etc.–but it is impressive, especially when punctuated by his $250 million net worth. Likewise, Reagan was competent and experienced. He was president of SAG. He did the lecture series for GE. He was governor of California. He had run for president once before. The guy had experience in spades.
Now contrast R & R with the others running for office. Santorum has 12 years in the Senate and a few years in the House. That’s nothing to sneeze at, but where’s the executive experience? Gingrich was Speaker of the House, where he had a successful run until it was no longer so successful. Since then he has headed a bunch of pompous sounding organizations, set up, I gather, to advance his ideas. Oh, and then there was that lobbying, er, historian stint with Fannie Mae. Paul? Enough said.
So where do their supporters retreat? To the Garden of Eden of Reagan conservatism. And Romney–to them–doesn’t measure up. To what? To Reagan’s conservative credentials? Okay. Romney is not as conservative as Reagan–or Santorum or Gingrich (balderdash on that one). But he matches and even exceeds Reagan as an executive and as a fixer. Add 2 (executive experience) + 1.5 (conservative credentials) and you get 3.5, which is at least .5 points more than I would give Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul. At least that’s what I think.
My brother Jeff died today. Fifty-six years old. I’ll miss him.
I won’t repeat myself. Just go here for my story in President & CEO magazine on business aviation, beginning on page 50. Enjoy.
I hate this time of the month. The jobs figures come out and good or bad, you know immediately what the Democrats are going to say and how the Republicans will respond. But ZeroHedge has the most interesting take–so far. Not sure what to think of it, given my lack of experience and knowledge in the area of employment statistics. But according to ZeroHedge,
it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that’s not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! (emphasis in the original)
What to think?
Update: Barry Ritholtz says ZeroHedge doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Comments (0) 
Themocracy