Saturday, May 28, 2011

Is McCarthy's "The Road" Hopeless or Hopeful?

I vote for hopeful. In the deepest darkness thinkable the father chooses life and goodness for his son despite the stark realness of despair as the he dies and everything around him appears to be dying.

This is the dark night of the soul in our death culture. The love of the father and his choice for good made me think this is the best book I've read since Lord of the Rings.

Fred


http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=263597

The Road, Cormac McCarthy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I just finished this book today. Was required to read it for class. And I cried ...boy is it depressing and is so hopeless. Does anybody have other views of the book that I might be missing? I'm looking for hope in it...I feel like it's wrong for something to have so little hope in God.

Has anybody else read this book?


holly_potter
View Public Profile
Find all posts by holly_potter

#2 Aug 26, '08, 2:43 am
Sam Maloney
Regular Member Join Date: June 4, 2004
Posts: 609

Re: The Road by Cormac McCarthy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm a huge fan of McCarthy, he reminds me of Faulkner at his best.

I thought the whole point of 'The Road' was hope:

SPOILER ALERT!!!!




SPOILER ALERT!!!!




SPOILER ALERT!!!!




SPOILER ALERT!!!!



It starts out in the worst possible world, with a father and son who love each other, and despite everything the father is trying to teach the son to be a decent person.

After much suffering, the son goes on alone, but he finds aid, finds out there really are other decent people and other children left in the world.

I thought the message was that no matter how bad things get, a shred of human decency will survive.

I'll admit it was [literaly and figuratively] a tough journey towards a less than triumphant ending, but compared to other post apocalyptic tales [On the Beach, Ice Nine, There Will Come Soft Rains [a Bradberry short story]], I felt The Road left me with some hope, and something valuable to think about.

Certainly not a tale for everyone, though.


Sam Maloney
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Sam Maloney

#3 Aug 26, '08, 5:39 am
Layman
Banned Join Date: June 30, 2008
Posts: 1,847
Religion: Catholic

Re: The Road by Cormac McCarthy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Off-topic: I've never understood why people would voluntarily read books that arouse negative emotions. I try to filter modern culture, so I can be at peace. Just because the Times Literary Supplement says you have to read something doesn't mean you have to. Reviewers often plug their pals work, or are compromised in other ways.

After, what, 20+ years of being a culture vulture I realised that most of it was a swizz, that artists were often ignoble, and that the bourgeoisie chattering to itself was not something I needed to bother too much with.

You don't have to stay to the end of a bad movie. Just leave.


Layman
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Layman

#4 Aug 26, '08, 6:18 am
Scottgun
Regular Member Join Date: September 14, 2006
Posts: 2,065
Religion: Catholic Theocratic Imperialist

Re: The Road by Cormac McCarthy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read the book too. I couldn't help but think the father was feeding the boy hope like a placebo. Like this passage:


We wouldnt ever eat anybody, would we?
No. Of course not.
Even if we were starving?
We're starving now.
You said we werent.
I said we werent dying. I didnt say we werent starving.
But we wouldnt.
No. We wouldnt.
No matter what.
No. No matter what.
Because we're the good guys.
Yes.
And we're carrying the fire.
And we're carrying the fire, yes.
Okay.
What the fire is seems to be left ambiguous. It could be the light of civilization, it could be hope in the face of hopelessness, or human compassion and right moral conduct, it could be the Holy Spirit for all we know. Their goal is the coast, but the father does not have any idea what they will do once they get there. In fact at the end it is difficult to tell if McCarthy is telling us that hope is real and worthwhile, real but pyrrhic, or mere comforting illusion in a meaningless universe. I fear it is the last one he is favoring.

In the Salve Regina, we hear: "To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears." The Road makes that vale and banishment stark and complete. The book does not answer whether there is anyone to cry to however.

I also recommend a look at an article Nerd Do-Wells which describes this disturbing trend in films and novels that are essentially saying, "the darkness shines in the light, and the light did not overcome it."
__________________
Romish blogging at http://romishgraffiti.wordpress.com/


Scottgun
View Public Profile
Visit Scottgun's homepage!
Find all posts by Scottgun

#5 Aug 28, '08, 1:43 am
Sam Maloney
Regular Member Join Date: June 4, 2004
Posts: 609

Re: The Road by Cormac McCarthy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Layman, I think that's a rather harsh judgement on your part. A lot of great art challanges us, takes us to some dark places. The gospels would be pretty meaningless if we removed all the 'downers'.

Scott, the passage you quote is a good one. Father and son carry the light because they still behave ethically. They have values, and are therefore valuable.

The father lives totally for his son, who is kind and gentle, despite the world he lives in. Father is a great paternal role model-- he has forged his son's personality [practically the only other person the son has ever really known], and sacrifices himself daily for his son's sake.

And this, in turn, is why the son is a genuinely good person: he's following in his father's footsteps.

Think about this: the boy could have laid down beside his father's body and starved. He was tempted. But in his very darkest hour, he chose to get up and get going. He chose to try, and when he tried, he found help and hope for a better life.

I find that a powerful, positive message. In my own life, I frequently have to struggle against depression, against the desire to lay in the dark and wait for death. So I can identify with the boy, and the message-- never surrender, but never surrender your values, either-- is incredibly important, even inspirational.


Sam Maloney
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Sam Maloney

#6 Aug 31, '08, 1:25 pm
Epistemes
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
Book Club Member Join Date: November 17, 2006
Posts: 1,872
Religion: Catholic


Re: BOOKS: The Road, Cormac McCarthy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello,

Some very astute observations about the book have already been made.

I agree that the father is offering the boy a great deal of hope throughout the book -- but it is more than obvious that the father himself seems to lack hope. He has lost hope and trust in other humans -- whom he threatens even when they have done nothing wrong to him so far as we can tell. Sure, one guy steals their belongings, but the father's reaction is more than a bit overboard...all springing from his complete and utter distrust. The father's sole purpose for living is the boy and to see that the boy survives. His only hope is that the boy will be a champion of what remains. In the end, I think this proves somewhat true, but not how the father might've expected or wished it: for the boy acts completely contrary to the father's suspicion of other people by entrusting himself to a family of strangers.

Even if McCarthy is trying to convey that hope is an illusion, he at least seems to consider it a worthwhile illusion, one that man needs in order to survive, if not to live.
__________________

"I have carefully examined what the word heretic means, and I cannot make it mean more than this: a heretic is a man with whom you disagree."
--Sebastian Castellio (1515 - 1563)


Epistemes
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Epistemes

#7 Sep 1, '08, 8:39 am
Cordelil
Junior Member Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 195
Religion: Catholic

Re: BOOKS: The Road, Cormac McCarthy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read it. I am a Cormac McCarthy fan. The ones I like the best are the first 2 books of the Texas/Mexico trilogy: "All The Pretty Horses," and "The Crossing." Many critics have lauded his novel "Blood Meridian." I have read it once and will probably get around to a second in the future.

I think that the previous replies dealing with the positive apsects of the book are right on target. However, I think it along with is other recent work, "No Country For Old Men," do not measure up to the T/ M trilogy.

John


Cordelil
View Public Profile
Find all posts by Cordelil

#8 Sep 9, '08, 10:30 pm
TomPiltoff
Banned Join Date: September 13, 2007
Posts: 402
Religion: Atheist


Re: The Road by Cormac McCarthy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I finished The Road a few months ago (I really wanted to read the book before the movie comes out) and I think it's wonderful.

I definitely agree that the theme of the story is that human compassion will always exist.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Rosary Saved the World in 1960 from Nuclear Annihilation

On EWTN's Fatima series, Fr. Apostoli said that the Rosary and Our Lady saved the world from the Russia's hydrogen bomb rocket, which he said may have been represented in the Third Secret of Fatima as Our Lady stopping the angel from covering the world with flames.

Fred

http://www.opusangelorum.org/Formation/Holyrosary.html

The Soviets, however, did not give up on their plans to take over western countries. Five years later Nikita Krushev visited the United Nations Headquarters in New York City and boasted that he would bury the United States and the Western world. And to emphasize his point, he took off his shoe and pounded it on top of the table.

The West seemed in danger of a Soviet takeover. But Pope John XXIII had read the third secret of Fatima, and so he had authorized the Bishop of Leiria (Fatima) to write to all the bishops of the world, inviting them to join with pilgrims of Fatima on the night of October 12-13, 1960, to pray the Rosary for peace and for Russia’s conversion. About a million pilgrims responded to the request and spent the night outdoors in a bone-chilling rain before the Blessed Sacrament praying the Rosary. And in addition to this, over 300 dioceses throughout the world joined them.

The Rosaries and sacrifices of millions obtained another astonishing intervention. For that same night the Soviets’ new long-range A-bomb missile unexpectedly blew up during a test, killing three hundred top military leaders and scientists. This set back Russia’s nuclear program twenty years.

http://www.santorosario.net/power.htm

On October 13, 1960.

Most of us remember the time when Nikita Khrushchev visited the United Nations in October, 1960 and boasted that "they would bury us"—would annihilate us! And to emphasize his boasting, he took off his shoe and pounded the desk before the horrified world assembly.

This was no idle boast. Khrushchev knew his scientists had been working on a nuclear missile and had completed their work and planned on November 1960, the 43rd anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, to present it to Khrushchev.

But here's what happened. Pope John XXIII had opened and read the third Fatima secret given to Sister Lucy. He authorized the Bishop of Leiria (Fatima) to write to all the bishops of the world, inviting them to join with the pilgrims of Fatima on the night of October 12-13, 1960, in prayer and penance for Russia's conversion and consequent world peace.

On the night of October 12-13, about a million pilgrims spent the night outdoors in the Cova da Iria at Fatima in prayer and penance before the Blessed Sacrament. They prayed and watched despite a penetrating rain which chilled them to the bone.

At the same time at least 300 dioceses throughout the world joined with them. Pope John XXIII sent a special blessing to all taking part in this unprecedented night of reparation.

Well, here is what happened. On the night between October 12 and 13, right after his shoe-pounding episode, Khrushchev suddenly pulled up stakes and enplaned in all haste for Moscow, cancelling all subsequent engagements, Why?

Marshall Nedelin, the best minds in Russia on nuclear energy and several government officials were present for the final testing of the missile that was going to be presented to Khrushchev. When countdown was completed, the missile, for some reason or other, did not leave the launch pad. After 15 or 20 minutes, Nedelin and all the others came out of the shelter. When they did, the missile exploded killing over 300 people. This set back Russia's nuclear program for 20 years, prevented all-out atomic warfare, the burying of the U.S.—and this happened on the night when the whole Catholic world was on its knees before the Blessed Sacrament, gathered at the feet of our Rosary Queen in Fatima. Our Lady does not want nuclear war.

http://www.opusangelorum.org/Formation/Holyrosary.html

The Most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary
I. THE POWER OF THE ROSARY

"If I had an army to say the Rosary," Pope Pius IX once said, "I could conquer the world." And he said this because the Rosary, next to the Mass, is the most powerful weapon in the Church’s arsenal.

Now most people are aware that the Christian Navy defeated a large Moslem fleet, against overwhelming odds, at Lepanto on October 7, 1571. And most people are aware that this victory was won because Pope Pius V organized a Rosary procession to pray for the success of the battle. However, most people are unaware of the many amazing victories won through the power of the Rosary in the Twentieth Century. And so it is fitting to study some of these miraculous and divine interventions because this will help us to strengthen our faith in Mary’s intercession and to deepen our trust in the power of her Rosary.

One of the most amazing miracles in history occurred at 8:15 a.m. on August 6, 1945, in Hiroshima, Japan. At that time the Americans dropped the first atomic bomb, and it landed just eight city blocks from the Jesuit church of Our Lady of the Assumption. A half million people were killed instantly when the bomb hit, and homes and buildings for miles around were instantly leveled. Yet the Jesuit church and rectory as well as the four Jesuit priests inside it were undamaged and unhurt. Why? Because the priests prayed the Rosary daily.

This miracle, as great as it was, however, was just the beginning of the many wonders that Mary would work through her Rosary in the second half of the twentieth century.

First, there was Austria. After WWII the communists of Russia took over Austria. To shake off this yoke, a Franciscan priest, Fr. Peter Pavlicek, organized a Rosary crusade in 1948. It began on September 12, the Feast of the Holy Name of Mary. Fr. Peter asked for a tithe of Rosaries. He asked that ten percent of all the Austrians pledge to say the Rosary daily until the Soviets left the country. The people of Austria responded generously. They prayed for seven years, and then on May 13, 1955, the Soviets mysteriously just packed up and peacefully left.

The Soviets, however, did not give up on their plans to take over western countries. Five years later Nikita Krushev visited the United Nations Headquarters in New York City and boasted that he would bury the United States and the Western world. And to emphasize his point, he took off his shoe and pounded it on top of the table.

The West seemed in danger of a Soviet takeover. But Pope John XXIII had read the third secret of Fatima, and so he had authorized the Bishop of Leiria (Fatima) to write to all the bishops of the world, inviting them to join with pilgrims of Fatima on the night of October 12-13, 1960, to pray the Rosary for peace and for Russia’s conversion. About a million pilgrims responded to the request and spent the night outdoors in a bone-chilling rain before the Blessed Sacrament praying the Rosary. And in addition to this, over 300 dioceses throughout the world joined them.

The Rosaries and sacrifices of millions obtained another astonishing intervention. For that same night the Soviets’ new long-range A-bomb missile unexpectedly blew up during a test, killing three hundred top military leaders and scientists. This set back Russia’s nuclear program twenty years.

Shortly after this happened, Dona Amelia Basto organized a Rosary campaign in Brazil to save the country from a communist takeover. She managed to recruit 600,000 women in 1962 to say the Rosary in Sao Paulo for peace. And through this demonstration of faith and prayer, the country was spared a communist dictatorship.

Something similar happened in Portugal in 1975. The communist government in that country was peacefully overthrown after a national Rosary crusade for peace was launched.

All these wonders, however, were surpassed on March 25, 1984, when Pope John Paul II called for a Rosary crusade because of the grave danger to world peace at that time. In response to his request, a major "Rosaries for peace" crusade was launched by the Blue Army and other Marian organizations. There was a magnificent response. And on May 13, 1984, one of the largest crowds in Fatima history gathered at the shrine to pray the Rosary for peace. And that very day an explosion at the Soviets’ Severomorsk Naval Base destroyed two-thirds of all the missiles stockpiled for the Soviets’ Northern Fleet. The blast also destroyed the workshops needed to maintain the missiles as well as hundreds of scientists and technicians. Western military experts called it the worst naval disaster the Soviet Navy had suffered since WWII.

Besides this, the Soviet Defense Minister, the mastermind behind the invasion plans, suddenly and mysteriously became seriously ill and then died in December of 1984. Four years later, during the night of May 12, 1988, as thousands prayed the Rosary at Fatima, another mysterious explosion wrecked the only factory that made the rocket motors for the Soviets’ deadly SS 24 long-range missiles, which carry ten nuclear bombs each.

Now all these events, it should be noted, are understandable and explainable only in light of the Fatima apparitions of the Blessed Mother. For when Mary first appeared at the Cova da Ira on May 13, 1917, she said to the children: "Pray the Rosary everyday in order to obtain peace for the world and the end of the war." And at each of the other five apparitions, she said: "Pray the Rosary every day." Also, it should be noted that the Blessed Mother expressly asked for prayers for the conversion of Russia and that she also prophesized that this nation would endanger the peace and security of the entire world if her words were ignored. In the third apparition on July 13, 1917, she warned:

If my wishes are fulfilled, Russia will be converted and there will be peace. If not, Russia will spread her errors throughout the world, promoting wars and persecution of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be annihilated.

And so by making this prophecy, Mary made the Rosary the indispensable and necessary condition for world peace. In other words, there will be no peace in the world–there can be no peace in the world–until the Rosary is prayed on a wide scale.

Before going further, it should be stressed that the Rosary is not only the best protection for countries and societies, but it is also the best protection any individual person could ever hope to have. For St. Louis de Montfort states in his classic book, The Secret of the Rosary:

If you say the Rosary faithfully until death, I do assure you that, in spite of the gravity of your sins, you shall receive a never fading crown of glory. For even if you are now on the brink of damnation, even if you have one foot in hell, even if you have sold your soul to the devil…sooner or later you will be converted and will amend your life and save your soul. If–you say the Rosary devoutly every day of your life.

There are several reasons why this is so. "First, the Rosary leads us to meditate on all the major mysteries in the life of Christ and therefore to adore and thank God for his love and mercy, which is the principal duty of all the faithful. Second, this prayer takes place through the mediation of Mary, which is most pleasing to God, since she is our spiritual Mother." Third, the Rosary puts us into contact with the holy angels. For St. Alphonsus Liguori says that at each Hail Mary the angels are attracted to us, while the devils are repelled. And Pope Leo XIII states that "each time we meditate on the mysteries of our salvation in the Rosary we in some way imitate the sacred duties once committed to the angels. For they revealed each of the mysteries in its due time; they played a great part in them with expressions of joy, of sorrow, and of triumphant exultation." What then, he asks, "could be greater and more delightful than to mediate and pray with the angels by saying the Rosary?"

II. THE POPES ON THE POWER OF THE ROSARY

The popes, then, of modern times beginning with Pius IX, have stressed and explained the power of the Rosary and the need for saying it often. Leo XIII is especially noteworthy in this respect, for he wrote no less than twelve encyclicals on the Rosary, more than any pope before or since. "There is no question, then, that his influence on the Rosary and its development was the most significant to come from a pope." And much of what he said led to "the greatest popularity which the Rosary enjoyed during the high period of its popular development in the first half of the twentieth century." For this reason, it is important to examine some of his statements on the Rosary. First of all, he directed that the Rosary be recited every day in the cathedral of each diocese and on feast days in all parish churches.

Most importantly, however, he explained the power that the Rosary can unlock. For he said, "the Rosary, if devoutly used is bound to benefit not only the individual, but society at large." In addition to this, he went so far as to state that "the Rosary is our best hope, since it can more than anything else implore from God the help that we need." And interestingly, he added, "the Rosary is the best prayer to help the cause of Christian unity."

To sum up his approach to the Rosary, then, he wrote, "There are, of course, more ways than one to win Mary’s protection by prayer, but as for us, we think that the best and most effective way to her lies in her Rosary."

Pope Pius XII echoed Leo XIII’s confidence in the power of the Rosary. He believed its recitation is the key to peace and happiness in our age. For he wrote, "We put great confidence in the Rosary for the healing of the evils that affect our times." In fact, he said, "there is no surer means of calling down God’s blessings upon the family and especially of preserving peace and happiness in the home than the daily recitation of the Rosary."

Later on, Pope John XXIII helped to develop our understanding of the Rosary in new directions. In one document he spoke about the Rosary as "a prayer of love breathed from the heart." And in another he gave us new insights about how to use the Rosary as a form of meditation. He wrote:

The true substance of the well-meditated Rosary consists in a three-fold element that gives unity and cohesion…to the episodes in the life of Jesus and Mary… For in each decade of Hail Marys there is a picture, and for each picture a three-fold emphasis which is simultaneously: mystical contemplation, intimate reflection and pious intention.

Now it should be noted here that John XXIII had a great love for the Rosary and that he used to recite the entire fifteen decades everyday with all of the papal household.

Pope Paul VI carried on the papal tradition of adding new insights to the Rosary. In a sermon to some children who were members of the Living Rosary Association, he explained how the Rosary can improve social life on earth and also help the poor souls in purgatory. "Through your Rosary you can succeed in giving comfort to the sick, in saving the dying, in converting sinners, in helping the missionaries, and in freeing souls from purgatory."

Besides this, he also strongly recommended praying the family Rosary. "There is no doubt," he wrote, "that the Rosary should be considered as one of the best and most powerful prayers in common that the Christian family could recite."

Now everyone is aware of Pope John Paul II’s great love for the Rosary. For he leads the Rosary every First Saturday in St. Peter’s Basilica, and he has been widely quoted as saying that "the Rosary is my favorite prayer." And so he has, in line with the other popes of the Twentieth Century, strongly promoted devotion to the Rosary. He has stated not only that the "Rosary is a privileged means of averting the danger of war and of obtaining the gift of peace from God," but also that the Rosary "dispels the seeds of family disintegration." For this reason he has urged all Catholics, especially families, to pray the Rosary every day. And he has also urged priests to pray the Rosary and to teach their people how to pray it as well.

From the miracles worked through the Rosary in this century and the endorsements given to it by the popes, we can learn something, then, of the great power contained in the Rosary beads.

III. HOW TO SAY THE ROSARY

Now that we have discussed why we should say the Rosary, it is necessary to explain how we should say it, for there are many misconceptions among good Catholics on the best and most effective way to say–or to pray–the Rosary. Fr. Hardon, in a talk given to the Institute For Religious Life a few years ago, offered several interesting, original, and helpful suggestions on how the Rosary might be prayed. In fact, he stated that there are thirty-four different ways in which the Rosary can be said. Most of what follows is adapted from his conference. Not all, however, of the thirty-four different ways are discussed but just some of the more salient points.

1. Frequently. We should try to say the Rosary as often as possible and not just when we feel like it. Otherwise, we will get out of the habit of saying it altogether.

2. Regularly. This means that there should be certain set times in our lives when we pray the Rosary, for example, every morning or evening, every time we drive a car or take a walk, or before or after mass.

3. Intentionally. We should always have an intention in mind when we say the Rosary. In other words, we should always say it for someone or for some specific need.

4. Privately. We should be able to say the Rosary as easily by ourselves as with other people. Some people get into the bad habit of only saying the Rosary with others. And so because of this, they become unable to say it by themselves. The Church, however, encourages individual recitation by granting a plenary indulgence to anyone who says the Rosary in a church, even if it’s done by him or herself alone.

5. Corporately. Some people have the opposite problem, and they dislike saying the Rosary with others, so we must learn to do it both ways. Again, the Church is our guide here because it grants a plenary indulgence to those persons who pray the Rosary together in a group, that is, two or more persons, inside or outside of a church.

6. Meditatively. This is one of the more important aspects of praying the Rosary. It is most fitting to consciously think about what we are doing and meditate closely on the mystery proposed for each decade. For without doing this, says Pope Paul VI, the "Rosary is merely a body without a soul, and its recitation is in danger of becoming a mechanical repetition of formulas and of going counter to the warning of Christ, who said, ‘in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will win a hearing by their many words.’"

For this reason, the very nature of the Rosary, states Paul VI, stresses a "quiet rhythm and a lingering pace…for in this way the unfathomable riches of the mysteries are unfolded." Further on this point of method, St. Louis de Montfort says that "it is not so much the length of the prayer, but rather the fervor with which it is said that pleases Almighty God and touches his heart. For one single Hail Mary that is said properly is worth more than 150 that are badly said."

It should be noted, however, that the Rosary meditation need not be a prolonged reflection. Rather a simple and attentive glance at the mystery is all that is required. A detailed analysis of the mystery and the corresponding prayers is not necessary, for the Hail Marys and Our Fathers should be seen as a kind of background music that gently induces contemplative prayer.

Now before going further, it is helpful if we know exactly what a "mystery" of the Rosary is. The mysteries, quite simply, are merely fifteen different scenes selected from the life of Christ. For these scenes have been found, over the centuries, to have a unique ability to help us understand the most significant events in the life of Christ. And so we can penetrate the truths of the faith more deeply, then, and also learn how to speak the language of God and His angels better by meditating on the fifteen mysteries.

7. Scripturally. From time to time it, it is helpful to say the Scriptural Rosary. "The Scriptural Rosary follows the old medieval custom of assigning a different little thought to each Hail Mary bead. The thoughts are arranged so that the story of each mystery unfolds, bead by bead, in ten consecutive steps. And most importantly, the Scriptural Rosary draws its Hail Mary thought directly from the Old and New Testaments."

8. Attentively. We must resolve to make a serious effort to keep our mind focused on the mystery on which we are supposed to be meditating. For it is very easy to give into distractions and lapse into daydreaming if we are not vigilant. And so before beginning the Rosary, we should, first of all, put ourselves in the presence of God. Also, it is important to be aware on this point that just by looking at the Rosary beads from time to time is often enough to bring us back to reality.

To help us pray with attention, St. Louis de Montfort recommends "that we imagine that not only God is watching us and that our guardian angel is standing at our right hand, taking our Hail Marys, if they are well said, and using them like roses to make crowns for Jesus and Mary–but also that at our left hand is standing a devil who is ready to pounce upon every Hail Mary poorly said, so that he can accuse us before the Judgment Seat of Christ after our death."

9. Instinctively. Our motto should be as follows: "When in doubt, say the Rosary." And so if we are faced with some insurmountable obstacle and do not know what else to do–or if we just have time on our hands because our plane is late or because we are forced to wait extra long for an appointment–then we should instinctively reach for our Rosary beads and begin to pray.

10. Liturgically. It is a good idea to begin the liturgy with a Rosary, for it is an excellent preparation for the Mass as well as an excellent means of thanksgiving afterwards. The Rosary, however, should never be said during any liturgy, especially during the Mass. Elaborating on this point, Pope Paul VI states, "Meditation on the mysteries of the Rosary can be an excellent preparation for the celebration of those same mysteries in liturgical action and can also become a continuing echo of them afterwards." However, he stresses, "it is a mistake to recite the Rosary during the celebration of the liturgy, though unfortunately this practice still persists here and there."

11. Ecclesiastically. There are associations approved by the Church that increase the graces we receive from praying the Rosary. Two in particular should be mentioned.

The first is the Confraternity of the Holy Rosary. This is an organization of hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world who join their prayers with others through the recitation of the Rosary. Each member promises to pray at least fifteen mysteries of the Rosary once a week, but this promise does not bind under the pain of sin. Further, each member includes the intentions not only of all the living members of the association, but also of all the deceased members as well. And so because of this, it is as if you had hundreds of thousands of people praying the Rosary for you throughout the world. This led St. John Vianney to say: "If anyone has the happiness of being in the Confraternity of the Rosary, he has in all corners of the world brothers and sisters who pray for him." And St. Alphonsus Liguori said: "After the Mass, the best means of helping souls in purgatory is to join the Confraternity of the Rosary."

In addition to these benefits, the Dominicans, who oversee the Confraternity, admit all members to a share in the Masses, prayers, penance, and apostolic works of all the Dominican Fathers, brothers, sisters, cloistered nuns, and third-order members throughout the world.

Next, there is the Living Rosary Association. Again, this is a Dominican-sponsored organization. It is administered by the Dominican Nuns of the Perpetual Rosary in Fatima. Members of the Association promise to spend one hour on the same day of each month praying and meditating on the fifteen decades of the Rosary. The hour is called the "Hour of Guard" and constitutes a place among the royal guard of Mary’s great Rosary family.

12. Apostolically. We should try to become Apostles of the Rosary by getting other people to say it. To do this, we must explain the power of the Rosary and the wonders Mary can work through it. To this end, it is helpful to learn something about the lives of the great saints who specialized in promoting the Rosary, such as St. Dominic and St. Louis de Montfort. Also, it would be helpful to know something about the life of Fr. Patrick Peyton, the great modern Apostle of the Rosary. His life and experiences are described in his autobiography, titled All for Her.

13. Expectively. Expect, that is plan, to say the Rosary at specific times and places and for specific intentions. Unless this is done, it is unlikely that our daily Rosary will be prayed.

14. Promisingly. Get into the habit of promising to say the Rosary for others. We must not, however, promise to say more than we can say in a reasonable period of time.

15. Giftfully. Give Rosary beads as a gift to others, especially on first communions, confirmations, and marriages. These are ideal times to introduce or reintroduce people to the Rosary. Also, give Rosaries on birthdays and anniversaries. Most good Catholics have Rosaries, but they can always use another.

16. Needfully. The Rosary is meant to meet all our needs. We should not hesitate, therefore, to concentrate on certain mysteries and associate them with particular problems we may be experiencing in our life. In other words, we should try to relate the specific mysteries of the Rosary to the specific needs of our life.

17. Openly. We should not be shy or ashamed about saying the Rosary in public or holding it in a crowd, for simply walking around with a Rosary in our hand is a kind of evangelization and a witness to the faith. And so on this point we should always keep in mind the words of Christ: "Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this faithless and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels (Mk 8:38).

IV. CONCLUSION
Now to conclude, we can do no better than to end with the words of Pope Pius X, speaking of the Rosary: "Of all prayers the Rosary is the most beautiful and the richest in graces; of all it is the one which is most pleasing to Mary, the Virgin Most Holy. Therefore love the Rosary and recite it everyday with devotion."

Work of the Holy Angels®
13800 Gratiot Ave.
Detroit, MI 48205 USA
(313) 527-1739 | Fax (313) 527-1729

email: opusangelorum@rc.net

Friday, May 13, 2011

Is your Computer Demon Possessed?

中文(简) | 中文(繁)
Prayer against Internet pornography

Composed by Hieromonk Damascene
Published with blessing of Bishop MAXIM of Western America
Before turning on the computer, make three bows, kiss the holy icons, and say:

O Lord Jesus Christ, my God and Savior, through the prayers of Thy Most Pure Mother and of my Patron Saint and Guardian Angel, preserve me from all sinful pleasures in all my senses; help me not to look at evil and impure images that will harm my soul and separate me from Thee; help me to cut off the desire to indulge in such unchaste activity; and help me rather to do work that is productive and pleasing to Thee and to Thy Church, that I may glorify Thee, together with Thine Unoriginate Father and the Most Holy, Good and Life-creating Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/03/10/us_preacher_finds_demonpossessed_pcs/

US preacher finds demon-possessed PCsAlert Print Retweet Facebook And they speak in tongues, too

By Thomas C Greene in Washington DC • Get more from this author

Posted in Business, 10th March 2000 16:19 GMT

Free whitepaper – Corporate Anti-Malware Evolves

Forget about viruses and malicious hackers; the real threat these days is far more insidious. Your home computer may be host to a demon, and you and your family may well come under its malevolent control, the Weekly World News reports. "While the Computer Age has ushered in many advances, it has also opened yet another door through which Lucifer and his minions can enter and corrupt men's souls," the paper quotes the Reverend Jim Peasboro, author of an upcoming book, The Devil in the Machine, as saying.

Demons are able to possess anything with a brain, from a chicken to a human being. And today's thinking machines have enough space on their hard drives to accommodate Satan or his pals, the paper reports. Disk capacity is an issue, however. Only a PC built after 1985 has the storage capacity to house an evil spirit, the minister explained.

The Georgia clergyman says he became aware of the problem from counseling churchgoers. "I learned that many members of my congregation became in touch with a dark force whenever they used their computers," he said. "Decent, happily married family men were drawn irresistibly to pornographic Web sites and forced to witness unspeakable abominations. "Housewives who had never expressed an impure thought were entering Internet chat rooms and found themselves spewing foul, debasing language they would never use normally," he declared. "One woman wept as she confessed to me, 'I feel when I'm on the computer as if someone else or something else just takes over.'"

The minister said he probed one such case, actually logging onto the parishioner's computer himself. To his horror, an artificial-intelligence program started spontaneously. "The program began talking directly to me, openly mocked me," he recalls. "It typed out, 'Preacher, you are a weakling and your God is a damn liar.'" Then the device went haywire and started printing out what looked like gobbledygook. "I later had an expert in dead languages examine the text," the minister said. "It turned out to be a stream of obscenities written in a 2,800-year-old Mesopotamian dialect!" The minister estimates that one in ten computers in America now hosts some type of evil spirit.

The Reverend advises anyone suspecting that their computer is possessed to consult a clergyman, or, if the computer is still under warranty, to take it in for servicing. "Technicians can replace the hard drive and reinstall the software, getting rid of the wicked spirit permanently," he says. ® See also Net is bad news, says Archbishop Bill Gates devil "numerologist" can't count Intel in Revelations avoidance shocker Bishops bash web pornmongers

http://www.cyberexorcism.com/2009/11/your-computer-may-be-possessed-by-a-demon/

Your computer may be possessed by a demon!
1 Comment
JEFF
Posted March 13, 2011 at 1:52 AM
I believe anything can give access, I feel the computers are only part. its the hard drive that hold the instructions, and demonic content.

I repair computers and I know this for a fact because I was shown. I would bring hard drives home to test and or repair, temptations would take place and I would wonder why, I was shown this. Another tip is that I would keep being tempted with things over and over and I wondered why. then I was remionded and I went hunting in another part of my house only to find the very thing my son had placed in his room was the source, its was paper.

Bin Laden Killing Most Botched Operation in History Covered-up by Media

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts304.html

The Agendas Behind the bin Laden News Event
by Paul Craig Roberts

The US government’s bin Laden story was so poorly crafted that it did not last 48 hours before being fundamentally altered. Indeed, the new story put out on Tuesday by White House press secretary Jay Carney bears little resemblance to the original Sunday evening story. The fierce firefight did not occur. Osama bin Laden did not hide behind a woman. Indeed, bin Laden, Carney said, "was not armed."

The firefight story was instantly suspicious as not a single SEAL got a scratch, despite being up against al Qaeda, described by former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld as "the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth."

Every original story detail has been changed. It wasn’t bin Laden’s wife who was murdered by the Navy SEALs, but the wife of an aide. It wasn’t bin Laden’s son, Khalid, who was murdered by the Navy SEALs, but son Hamza.

Carney blamed the changed story on "the fog of war." But there was no firefight, so where did the "fog of war" come from?

The White House has also had to abandon the story that President Obama and his national security team watched tensely as events unfolded in real time (despite the White House having released photos of the team watching tensely), with the operation conveyed into the White House by cameras on the SEALs helmets. If Obama was watching the event as it happened, he would have noticed, one would hope, that there was no firefight and, thus, would not have told the public that bin Laden was killed in a firefight. Another reason the story had to be abandoned is that if the event was captured on video, every news service in the world would be asking for the video, but if the event was orchestrated theater, there would be no video.

No explanation has been provided for why an unarmed bin Laden, in the absence of a firefight, was murdered by the SEALs with a shot to the head. For those who believe the government’s story that "we got bin Laden," the operation can only appear as the most botched operation in history. What kind of incompetence does it require to senselessly and needlessly kill the most valuable intelligence asset on the planet?

According to the US government, the terrorist movements of the world operated through bin Laden, "the mastermind." Thanks to a trigger-happy stupid SEAL, a bullet destroyed the most valuable terrorist information on the planet. Perhaps the SEAL was thinking that he could put a notch on his gun and brag for the rest of his life about being the macho tough guy who killed Osama bin Laden, the most dangerous man on the planet, who outwitted the US and its European and Israeli allies and inflicted humiliation on the "world’s only superpower" on 9/11.

When such a foundational story as the demise of bin Laden cannot last 48 hours without acknowledged "discrepancies" that require fundamental alternations to the story, there are grounds for suspicion in addition to the suspicions arising from the absence of a dead body, from the absence of any evidence that bin Laden was killed in the raid or that a raid even took place. The entire episode could just be another event like the August 4, 1964, Gulf of Tonkin event that never happened but succeeded in launching open warfare against North Vietnam at a huge cost to Americans and Vietnamese and enormous profits to the military/security complex.

There is no doubt that the US is sufficiently incompetent to have needlessly killed bin Laden instead of capturing him. But who can believe that the US would quickly dispose of the evidence that bin Laden had been terminated? The government’s story is not believable that the government dumped the proof of its success into the ocean, but has some photos that might be released, someday.


As one reader put it in an email to me: "What is really alarming is the increasingly arrogant sloppiness of these lies, as though the government has become so profoundly confident of their ability to deceive people that they make virtually no effort to even appear credible."

Governments have known from the beginning of time that they can always deceive citizens and subjects by playing the patriot card. "Remember the Maine," the "Gulf of Tonkin," "weapons of mass destruction," "the Reichstag fire" – the staged events and bogus evidence are endless. If Americans knew any history, they would not be so gullible.

The real question before us is: What agenda or agendas is the "death of bin Laden" designed to further?

There are many answers to this question. Many have noticed that Obama was facing re-election with poor approval ratings. Is anyone surprised that the New York Times/CBS Poll finds a strong rise in Obama’s poll numbers after the bin Laden raid? As the New York Times reported, "the glow of national pride" rose "above partisan politics, as support for the president rose significantly among both Republicans and independents. In all, 57 percent said they now approved of the president’s job performance, up from 46 percent."

In Washington-think, a 24% rise in approval rating justifies a staged event.

Another possibility is that Obama realized that the the budget deficit and the dollar’s rescue from collapse require the end of the expensive Afghan war and occupation and spillover war into Pakistan. As the purpose of the war was to get bin Laden, success in this objective allows the US to withdraw without loss of face, thus making it possible to reduce the US budget deficit by several hundred billion dollars annually – an easy way to have a major spending cut.

If this is the agenda, then more power to it. However, if this was Obama’s agenda, the military/security complex has quickly moved against it. CIA director Leon Panetta opened the door to false flag attacks to keep the war going by declaring that al Qaeda would avenge bin Laden’s killing. Secretary of State Clinton declared that success in killing bin Laden justified more war and more success. Homeland Security declared that the killing of bin Laden would motivate "homegrown violent extremists" into making terrorist attacks. "Homegrown violent extremists" is an undefined term, but this newly created bogyman seems to include environmentalists and war protesters. Like "suspect," the term will include anyone the government wants to pick up.

Various parts of the government quickly seized on the success in killing bin Laden to defend and advance their own agendas, such as torture. Americans were told that bin Laden was found as a result of information gleaned from torturing detainees held in Eastern European CIA secret prisons years ago.

This listing of possible agendas and add-on agendas is far from complete, but for those capable of skepticism and independent thought, it can serve as a starting point. The agendas behind the theater will reveal themselves as time goes on. All you have to do is to pay attention and to realize that most of what you hear from the mainstream media is designed to advance the agendas.

May 5, 2011

Paul Craig Roberts [send him mail], a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how Americans lost the protection of law, has been released by Random House.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/?page=2

Tuesday, May 3, 2011 11:04 ET
In bin Laden killing, media -- as usual -- regurgitates false Government claims
By Glenn Greenwald


AP
Osama Bin Laden
Virtually every major newspaper account of the killing of Osama bin Laden consists of faithful copying of White House claims. That's not surprising: it's the White House which is in exclusive possession of the facts, but what's also not surprising is that many of the claims that were disseminated yesterday turned out to be utterly false. And no matter how many times this happens -- from Jessica Lynch's heroic firefight against Iraqi captors to Pat Tillman's death at the hands of Evil Al Qaeda fighters -- it never changes: the narrative is set forever by first-day government falsehoods uncritically amplified by establishment media outlets, which endure no matter how definitively they are disproven in subsequent days.

Yesterday, it was widely reported that bin Laden "resisted" his capture and "engaged in a firefight" with U.S. forces (leaving most people, including me, to say that his killing was legally justified because he was using force). It was also repeatedly claimed that bin Laden used a women -- his wife -- as a human shield to protect himself, and that she was killed as a result. That image -- of a cowardly through violent-to-the-end bin Laden -- framed virtually every media narrative of the event all over the globe. And it came from many government officials, principally Obama's top counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan.

Continue reading
Those claims have turned out to be utterly false. From TPM today:


It was a fitting end for the America's most wanted man. As President Barack Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan told it, a cowardly Osama bin Laden used his own wife as a human shield in his final moments. Except that apparently wasn't what happened at all.

Hours later, other administration officials were clarifying Brennan's account. Turns out the woman that was killed on the compound wasn't bin Laden's wife. Bin Laden may have not even been using a human shield. And he might not have even been holding a gun.


Politico's Josh Gerstein adds: "The White House backed away Monday evening from key details in its narrative about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, including claims by senior U.S. officials that the Al Qaeda leader had a weapon and may have fired it during a gun battle with U.S. forces." Gerstein added: "a senior White House official said bin Laden was not armed when he was killed."

Whether bin Laden actually resisted his capture may not matter to many people; the White House also claimed that they would have captured him if they had the chance, and this fact seems to negate that claim as well. But what does matter is how dutifully American media outlets publish as "news reports" what are absolutely nothing other than official White House statements masquerading as an investigative article. And the fact that this process continuously produces highly and deliberately misleading accounts of the most significant news items -- falsehoods which endure no matter how decisively they are debunked in subsequent days -- doesn't have the slightest impact on the American media's eagerness to continue to serve this role.

* * * * *

Mona Eltahawy has an excellent column in The Guardian today headlined: "No dignity at Ground Zero. As a US Muslim I abhor the frat boy reaction."

Speaking of "frat boy reactions," Leon Panetta is excitingly speculating about which actors should portray him in the movie about the Hunt for bin Laden, helpfully suggesting Al Pacino. It's been a long time since Americans felt this good and strong about themselves -- nothing like putting bullets in someone's skull and dumping their corpse into an ocean to rejuvenate that can-do American sense of optimism.

Media Scrambles as Bin Laden Story Crumbles

by Alex Newman


h ttp://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/7387-media-scrambles-as-bin-laden-story-crumbles


While the establishment media was busy parroting President Obama’s announcement of Osama bin Laden’s supposed assassination, reporting the unsubstantiated claims as if they were unquestionable facts, much of the so-called “alternative” press was far more cautious — and accurate, it turns out. But more importantly, with the new official storyline indicating that bin Laden was in fact unarmed, bigger and much more important questions are beginning to emerge.
In terms of coverage, it turns out that the skeptical approach proved far superior in terms of getting it right. Countless mainstream sources were so confident in Obama’s word that they reported many of the claims as fact without even attributing them to the President.

But the official White House narrative has been changed so many times in recent days that now it’s almost unrecognizable. There wasn‘t even a fire fight; yet this was one of the crucial elements of the original story that justified the assassination of a person the government painted as the most valuable source of information on the planet — the leader of al-Qaeda. And in reporting the statements as fact, the establishment press has officially been left with egg all over its face again.

"[Bin Laden] was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house he was in," said terror czar John Brennan. Similarly, Obama said that “after a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.” The next day, however, the White House spokesman admitted bin Laden “was not armed." Trying to save face and justify the killing of an unarmed man, the spokesman added, without elaborating, that “resistance does not require a firearm."

More than a few other important parts of the storyline have been altered, contradicted, or simply exposed as false, too. Everything from which of bin Laden’s sons was supposedly killed to the claim that his wife was killed after being used as a “human shield” — all of it has changed for some reason or another. The transcript after Brennan’s speech was altered to change the name of the dead son. The new and improved narrative now says that not only was bin Laden’s wife not killed, but that she was not used as a human shield.

Originally the White House also suggested top officials watched the raid live through a video feed. Terror czar Brennan, for example, claimed that they “had real-time visibility into the progress of the operation.” CIA boss Leon Panetta later exposed that claim as false in an interview with PBS, saying: “There was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes that we really didn't know just exactly what was going on."

That means the “ photo op” of Obama and other officials intently “watching” the operation in the “Situation Room” was almost certainly staged for the press. And almost every media outlet that ran the picture used inaccurate captions parroting the White House claims.

And there’s more. The night of the raid, one administration official told reporters that a helicopter was lost due to mechanical failure. During that same briefing, another administration official said, "We didn't say it was mechanical." Now they claim the crash had something to do with the temperature at bin Laden’s supposed compound.

A poorly photo-shopped image of a dead bin Laden embarrassed a large swath of the world press and several Senators, too. Shortly after newspapers and television stations around the globe ran the image, it was exposed as a shoddy forgery that had been circulating for years. Now Obama said he “decided” not to release any pictures — or any other evidence that any element of the story is true, for that matter.

And then there’s the burial issue. The Obama administration originally claimed no country would accept the body; so, it was dumped at sea — Mafia style — in accordance with what Obama alleged were Islamic traditions and customs. When prominent Muslim theological leaders repudiated that lie and noted that it was actually a violation of Islamic tenets to bury Osama bin Laden in the ocean, the new line was that the decision was to avoid the creation of a “shrine.” That lie fell apart, too, when it was widely reported that bin Laden’s brand of Islam calls for unmarked graves — building any sort of shrine would have been blasphemous. So far, no new excuses have been concocted for allegedly feeding the body to the fish.

After the numerous discrepancies and falsehoods in the storyline became painfully obvious, the Associated Press, USA Today, Fox News and other outlets slowly and begrudgingly started to report it. “From the first moments, a good number of the details about bin Laden's killing, on points large and small, have been wrong,” admitted a Fox reporter in one of the more candid acknowledgements to appear in the mainstream press.

But of course, most of the media were also dutifully offering and parroting all manner of excuses. “Fog of war” was to blame for the confusion, claimed the White House spokesman after that excuse was suggested to him by a member of the “press” corps asking a question. Virtually every major news outlet reporting the changes in the official story promptly blamed “fog of war,” too.

An apologist reporter at USA Today wrote that “the administration did its best to get the story quickly,” adding “it's common situation with military action.” The paper quoted a Pentagon spokesperson under the Bush administration to bolster its case.

The AP offered a similar excuse along with the “fog of combat” line offered by the White House. “The contradictions and misstatements reflect the fact that even in the case of a highly successful and popular mission, the confusion inherent in a fast-paced, unpredictable military raid conducted under intense pressure in a foreign country does not lend itself immediately to a tidy story line,” the reporter claimed, citing “some experts.”

Several excuses for the ever-changing story were offered by other publications, too. The possibility that they were deliberate lies or worse was virtually never addressed. But the U.K. Independent noted: “The impression persists that the administration sought to cast the operation in the most heroic light possible, at the expense of the facts.”

Now, the President and his spokespeople and subordinates are refusing to offer more details or explanations. The government has also announced that it will not be releasing pictures or any other evidence to support its claims even as suspicions continue to mount.

But as analysts pointed out, the newly revealed fact that there was no fire fight begs the question about where the “fog” may have come from. And even more importantly: Why, in the absence of a fire fight, would U.S. forces put a bullet through the brain supposedly containing the most valuable intelligence on the planet? What if bin Laden knew where that alleged nuclear bomb in Europe was located that was set to detonate after his capture or death? None of those questions have been addressed so far.

But prominent critics are sounding the alarm. “When such a foundational story as the demise of bin Laden cannot last 48 hours without acknowledged ‘discrepancies’ that require fundamental alternations to the story, there are grounds for suspicion in addition to the suspicions arising from the absence of a dead body, from the absence of any evidence that bin Laden was killed in the raid or that a raid even took place,” noted Paul Craig Roberts, a senior official in the former Reagan administration in a piece entitled “ The Agendas Behind the bin Laden News Event.”

Roberts raised several important questions, too, as well as some comparisons. “The entire episode could just be another event like the August 4, 1964, Gulf of Tonkin event that never happened but succeeded in launching open warfare against North Vietnam at a huge cost to Americans and Vietnamese and enormous profits to the military/security complex,” he suggested, citing a series of government deceptions that have led to war based on lies and other atrocities.

Roberts suspects there are more lies about the bin Laden narrative than those exposed so far. And he’s certainly not alone. It emerged recently that the man who owned the house next to bin Laden’s supposed compound doesn’t even believe the story either. “To be honest, it’s not true,” he told Al Jazeera.

As the official story continues to be re-written by the administration and those in the media who simply re-package government press releases, critics and skeptics would seem to be justified in wondering what other lies and "fog of war" changes may emerge in the coming weeks and months. And perhaps even more importantly, we might also wonder if there are lies that may never be exposed in their entirety?

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

7 Lies About Bin Laden's Killing by the Obama Administration

http://www.alternet.org/news/150857/7_deceptions_about_bin_laden's_killing_pushed_by_the_obama_administration/

7 Deceptions About Bin Laden's Killing Pushed by the Obama Administration

The Obama administration deftly shaped the media coverage of its prized kill by detailing a picture-perfect, morally unambiguous special forces operation, which culminated in the death of Osama bin Laden. Most of the details of that narrative have now unravelled, but the conventional wisdom that the tale established remains. As Glenn Greenwald put it, that's par for the course: “the narrative is set forever by first-day government falsehoods uncritically amplified by establishment media outlets, which endure no matter how definitively they are disproven in subsequent days.”

In his address to the American people, and in subsequent media briefings by senior officials, we were told that a small force of as many as 25 Navy Seals stormed the compound with orders to take bin Laden alive, if possible. White House spokesman Jay Carney said that once inside the compound, they came under heavy fire and “were engaged in a firefight throughout the operation.” The SEALs killed Osama bin Laden's son when he lunged for them on a staircase, and finally encountered their quarry in a bedroom, where, after taking a woman believed to be his wife as a human shield, bin Laden died in a vicious fire-fight. The operation, Obama said, was carried out “with extraordinary courage and capability.”

As the week wore on, all of these details were "revised," and the administration claims that the initial, improbably clean account of what happened was merely a product of the "fog of war." And, as Salon's Justin Elliott notes, “despite the major misstatements by the administration on perhaps the biggest story of the year, the media has largely taken a deferential stance” to that position.

Let's look at what has changed since that first draft of history was written by the administration.

1. No Firefight

John Brennan, White House security adviser, initially told reporters that bin Laden “was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house he was in.” But on Wednesday, unnamed “administration officials” told NBC that only one person fired on U.S. troops from an adjacent guest house, and once they entered the main residence the “resistance” we were told they faced “never materialized.”

The compound was cleared quickly, said the officials, and rather than a 40-minute firefight, the commandoes spent most of their time there gathering computer hard drives and other potential sources of intelligence.

2. No Human Shields

A senior defense official at the Pentagon told reporters that bin Laden and other combatants "certainly did use women as shields." Jay Carney “revised” that part of the narrative, saying, "a woman, rather, bin Laden's wife, rushed the U.S. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed."

3. Kill Team?

Bin Laden's daughter alleges that the special forces operators first captured bin Laden and then executed him, though that story hasn't been confirmed. But (yet another) unnamed administration official told Reuters that the team “was under orders to kill the al Qaeda mastermind, not capture him.”

Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that the killing was an act of “self-defense,” but the account given by another official to NBC appears consistent with the idea that they were ordered to kill the terrorist leader. After entering the bedroom where bin Laden was holed up and shooting a woman in the leg, “without hesitation, the same commando turned his gun on bin Laden, standing in what appeared to be pajamas, and fire two quick shots, one to the chest and one to the head.” There were reports of weapons in the bedroom, but bin Laden was “unarmed at the time he was shot.” When asked if the al Qaeda leader had said anything to the operators, CIA chief Leon Panetta told PBS' Jim Lehrer, "To be frank, I don't think he had a lot of time to say anything."


4. Larger Force

According to the New York Times, the team comprised 79 special forces operators and a dog, 3 times the number of troops originally reported. This is relevant to the question of whether they could have taken bin Laden alive had that been their goal. As David Dayen noted, “the SEALs were well-trained and had the element of surprise, and this overmatched their foes, who were not plentiful – there was not a phalanx of bodyguards protecting the al Qaeda leader.”

5. No “Picture-Perfect” Operation

According to the Associated Press, “Navy SEALs carried out what those involved call a textbook military operation that killed the world’s most wanted man, Osama bin Laden.” It's an odd assertion, given that the raid appears to have resulted in a coveted, highly classified technology falling into the hands of a rival state.

ABC reports that one of the four helicopters used in the raid was damaged and destroyed by the SEAL team. But the parts left behind in the compound revealed a “top secret, never-before-seen stealth-modified helicopter” that had previously only been “rumored to exist.” According to the report, “photographs emerged of large sections being taken from the crash site under a tarp,” and former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke “said U.S. officials may have reason to worry about where those parts end up.”

"There are probably people in the Pentagon tonight who are very concerned that pieces of the helicopter may be, even now, on their way to China, because we know that China is trying to make stealth aircraft," he said. The Chinese military is known to have a close relationship with the Pakistani military.

6. Not Living in Luxury

On Monday, defense officials told reporters that bin Laden was holed up in a million-dollar compound and wondered what other terrorists might make of the situation "when they see that their leader was living, relatively speaking, high on the hog."

I fell for this one myself, writing on Monday that “bin Laden was living in the lap of luxury among our allies, not in either of the countries we've invaded and occupied since 9/11.” But according to The Guardian, “local estimates suggest the house is worth $250,000.”

Footage from inside the compound shows little sign of luxury. Cooking equipment was shown on the floor, the decor seemed shabby, medicines were left on a shelf with no cabinet and the pantry seemed rudimentary. The paint was peeling outside the building and there was no sign of air-conditioning.

7. White House Wasn't Watching the Whole Operation Unfold

On Monday, John Brennan said, "We were able to monitor in a real-time basis the progress of the operation from its commencement to its time on target to the extraction of the remains and to then the egress off of the target.” This gave way to the now iconic images of Obama, Hillary Clinton, and others watching intensely from the White House situation room. But the next day, CIA Director Leon Panetta told PBS, “Once those teams went into the compound, I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes that we really didn't know just exactly what was going on. There were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information.”

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet. He is the author of The 15 Biggest Lies About the Economy (and Everything else the Right Doesn't Want You to Know About Taxes, Jobs and Corporate America). Drop him an email or follow him on Twitter.

Monday, May 09, 2011

Netflix and Child Pornography

Boycott Netflix and say Fr Apostoli Prayer

DAILY PRAYER TO OUR BLESSED MOTHER
(To be recited Morning, mid-Day and Night)

Mary, loving Daughter of God the Father, I give my soul to your care. Protect the life of God in my soul, do not let me lose it by serious sin. Protect my mind and my will so that all of my thoughts and desires will be pleasing to God.

Hail Mary...

Mary, loving Mother of God the Son, I give my heart to your care. Let me love Jesus with all my heart. Let me always try to love my neighbor, and let me avoid friends who might lead me away from Jesus and into a life of sin.

Hail Mary...

Mary, loving Spouse of the Holy Spirit, I give my body to your care. Let me always remember that my body is a home for the Holy Spirit Who dwells in me. Let me never sin against Him by any impure actions, alone or with others, against the virtue of purity.

Hail Mary...

by Father Andrew Apostoli, CFR


http://boards.ign.com/teh_vestibule/b5296/198571706/r198585073/

Wow I just saw Child Porn on Netflix.

Dec 19, 2010
You'd get arrested for it and charged with possession of child pornography if it wasn't in a professional movie.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110107185015AA2E7tu

Why is netflix allowed to have child pornography on it's site?
I was recommended to watch a film on netflix called Home (from 2008), I think it's French. A young child actor, around 9 years of age is fully frontal naked more times in this film than I care to remember. I was disgusted.

I ask you, would YOU allow your own child to subject themselves to this sort of attention? If not, then why is it ok for them to be exploited on netflix? Can't America be better than this? Do we need to be as immoral as everyone else?

I would think a boycott of Netflix is in order! I don't know why this is allow?

Friday, May 06, 2011

Pro-Porn Netflix is Anti-EWTN: Go to Pius Media the Catholic DVD Rental Company

How come EWTN documentaries never make it to netflics?.. the only one i've seen on netflics that has been aired on ewtn is "into silence", it would be REALLY COOL to see the documentaries i see on EWTN on a secular video service.
almost 85%(maybe more) of these documentaries are about pot smoking, sex, how evil the Church is, anti-God, alternative lifestyles, history channel's vision of Christian history and anti-government, and that's not mentioning the movies, is there any way that we can petition EWTN or NETFLICS to show good Christian(Catholic) films and documentaries like the Vatican approved shroud of Turin documentary, or the "river of light" wich i really enjoyed? I think this is another way we can reach people who don't get EWTN or go to Church or are misguided by protestant Neo-chritianity, or been thought unreal history of the world and its Church.

What do you guys think?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pius Media, the Catholic DVD rental company has tons of EWTN programming. They are much like Netflix in how they work but their selection is entirely upright and wholesome. What a delightful family business and apostolate!