The burning question of this socio-cultural-political moment...

Was the Vatican aware that Michael Jackson was a pedophile?

I know, I was floored by all the surprise surrounding the incontrovertible evidence that there are priests that molest children!! "What was the world coming to?" I thunk. Americans might want to face the fact that most mainstream journalism is barely different from the National Enquirer, and that's even unfair to them since they sometimes actually report something accurately for yucks.

Never mind that I had heard about pedophile priests almost my entire life and that even in predominantly Catholic South Bend (Notre Dame University is located adjacent to the city) it was considered a cliché. In this historical moment, "surprise" that the Vatican has been covering-up acts of molestation by clerics for decades is everywhere. Why is this? Surely, some of this is cry of the siren, but abusers need willing enablers and they've gotten plenty of enabling over generations. The point is a distraction for those who want the cover-ups and the lies to continue. Some of them are doing it because they can't bear what's going to come out of all of this. The public, as in all the other things that we're supposed to be "protected" from knowing, can take it, the culprits and enablers cannot.

What about protecting children? The Vatican seems to be the last institution on earth willing to do that besides the Republican Party or any other number of faceless, self-perpetuating institutions. That's a culture in very serious denial about itself and a real exorcism is order. An exorcism is, in fact, what's occurring in a scandal of international scope. The Church will continue to insist that they can take care of the problem, but since when have they illustrated an ability to? Centuries ago, the Church once had their own parallel legal system alongside that of the Monarch. Did it produce justice? It did not.

Their reluctance to be held accountable by civil law and authorities speaks volumes that they haven't changed very much at the Vatican, and Pope Benedict XVI is hardly a maverick for change as his own personal handling of past cases illustrates plainly. Like the American Republican Party, they're just going to keep blowing their toes off because they don't know any better and because they don't know what else to do. All they seem capable of is blaming the victim, the pedagogy of the abuser. That's not going to make it go away anytime soon.

CNN: "KUM-BI-YAH" FACTOR

CNNOSPHERE--No, that image isn't Truman Capote, it's Anderson Cooper, and he's not a journalist, he is the moron-baby of Gloria Vanderbilt. Cooper is a joke, a male bimbo. Read this transcript excerpt to understand why. The event was the Nazi Pope's intrusion into-Turkey (a country with a 1% of 1% Christian-slice of a population of 70 million):

Cooper: For someone expecting sort of a -- a Pope John Paul II kind of visit, with -- with hundreds of thousands of people, this is not that kind of trip. It's almost more of a diplomatic trip.

Aslan: It's not really that -- this pope's M.O., really. Look, you know, yesterday, we were talking about the fact that, let's not -- let's not think that this pope's message is going to change, but perhaps what will change is the way he delivers that message. Today was a perfect example of that. I think that he's going to continue to push for a very robust dialogue with the Muslim world. He's going to continue to push for a resurgence and revival of -- of -- of Christianity throughout Europe. But I think, now that he recognizes how important it is for him to watch how he says things, you're going to see a much more conciliatory, much more measured response from him. [Ed.-Pope Benedict was the head of the Office of the Inquisition for over 20 years. It now has a friendlier-name.]

...Cooper: But, you know, I mean, dialogue, that's one of those diplomatic words. What does it actually mean? This pope has very strong beliefs about -- about Christianity, about Islam, about violence within Islam. What does a dialogue really look like?

Gallagher: It's a big point for the pope. In fact, he's talked about it before, that he thinks dialogue has to include straight talk, the hard questions.

Cooper: This is not everyone holding hands, singing kumbaya [my emphasis].

Gallagher: That's right. ...

Exactly what does any of this have to do with journalism? I don't care what they "think" or were handed by their boss, that isn't journalism. "Just the facts" is journalism, not this blurring of commentary and coverage pioneered by...CNN, not Fox News.

This is analysis, fine, but why go there at all? It's misleading, and suggests these talking-necks are actually doing investigative journalism. All a journalist is supposed to be doing is reporting the facts, not editorializing. But, far-worse than this, CNN took-up Cooper's "kumbiyah" aside--they're running-with-it as a catchphrase now!

Today, they were talking-about whether Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki was "singing Kumbiyah (the proper spelling)" with the Bush administration, or the "Kumbiyah factor." Right, is Al-Maliki singing the same song? Instead, we get these stupid catchphrases. CNN can shove it. And thanks-again, Anderson, for reporting rumors and hearsay amidst the misery of the people who were stuck at the Superdome in New Orleans. It helped the Bush administration demonize the victims of our neglect. Fuck you CNN, and fuck you Anderson Cooper.

While I'm at it: fuck you Ted Turner, you dumb asshole. You are Charles Foster Kane, you moron. Give one billion to the UN, goddammit, that's what you promised. Idiot.

The Original Irritant:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/28/acd.01.html