A Cry For Help

I am not in the habit of watching Paula Zahn's late-night show on CNN. Usually by that hour I am either sleeping soundly, drinking heavily, or masturbating with the fury of a rabid chimp. So it was by pure chance that I caught this little gem (about 3/4 the way down the page), involving a Catholic church whose "weeping statue" has attracted the usual gaggle of morons.

Let's take a quick peek at what passes for journamalistic objectivity. I have no idea whether Paula is always this obtuse, or if there's just such an insatiable need to play politically correct with all religious issues, even completely ridiculous ones like this. Whatever the case, it's nothing that a hastily-convened panel on blogger ethics can't cure.

Coming up next, a statue that is drawing crowds to a California church. Do you believe in miracles?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think curiosity, and I get choked up. I have that faith, and even if it isn't a true miracle, I've never seen a miracle.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It happens so often, as far as I know, that they don't even bother investigating it anymore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: The question tonight is, what caused those tears? Coming up, we'll ask someone who investigates these kinds of things for a rational explanation.

And a little bit later on, two men, a cage and absolutely raw violence. There is no doubt that this is a bloody sport.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

Sorry, I couldn't resist that. There's something about reading the transcription of the teaser that neatly encapsulates what a tiresome, shameless clusterfuck the vaunted MSM really is. Even the reporters who aren't carrying water for the criminals in office are still trolling the streets of basic cable in their fuck-me pumps.

ZAHN: Now we want to tell you about a mystery that has crowds flocking to a small Catholic church in Sacramento, California. The faithful say the statue of the Virgin Mary is actually shedding tears. Skeptics, as you might expect, aren't so sure.

Here's Rusty Dornin.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RUSTY DORNIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): There are the curious ones, but mostly, they are the faithful. Answers are not necessarily what these pilgrims seek. Sometimes it's enough just to see for themselves.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I kind of think it's a miracle. And I told my class about it a little bit, and I think it's just fascinating.

DORNIN: The statue of the Virgin Mary at the Vietnamese Catholic Martyrs Church in Sacramento, California. At first glance you see only her cool white face. But a closer look at the left side reveals what resembled tears and some believe it's tears of blood.

They first appeared in early November, but were wiped away by the parish priest. Then parishioners here say they reappeared before mass on Sunday, November 20th.

Since then, hundreds have made the pilgrimage, even in the pouring rain, adding certainty for some.

We had a big rain and the tears are still there. And I thought, oh, that's interesting. Once again, it just gives us hope and faith. Who knows if it's a miracle.

DORNIN: A miracle or just some odd event or prank. Miracles do happen, says Father James Murphy. But in this case, the church is not planning to check.

(on-camera): The church is not going to investigate this?

FATHER JAMES MURPHY, SACRAMENTO ARCHDIOCESE: No.

DORNIN: Why?

MURPHY: Because the vast majority of them end up having eventually a natural explanation emerges and then it just wanes.

DORNIN: But wouldn't it be better to quickly decide that rather than to let people go on believing?

MURPHY: No, the church thinks a century is not tomorrow's news and the position always has been wait and see what happens.

DORNIN (voice over): But some Catholics question that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It happens so often as far as I know that they don't even bother investigating it anymore. But I believe they should. It pays to see whether it's a hoax or not.

DORNIN: People watch and wait and for some, there is the hope the miracle they've been waiting for has arrived.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Not sure what Father Murphy's cryptic nonsense about "a century is not tomorrow's news" is supposed to mean exactly, or how it's relevant here, but observe how Dornin softsoaps the whole thing.

ZAHN: Rusty Dornin, thanks so much.

And joining me now is someone who has investigated a lot of phenomenon like this. Joe Nickell is editor of a magazine called "The Skeptical Inquirer" that investigates claims of paranormal and miraculous phenomenon.

Good of you to join us sir.

So what do you think has caused these tears on this statue?

JOE NICKELL, EDITOR, THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER: Hi, Paula.

Well, I have some good news and bad news. The bad news is I'm pretty sure it's a fake. The good news is that probably the faithful won't believe me.

ZAHN: And what evidence would you base the fact that you believe this is a fake on?

NICKELL: Well, common sense says that if it's weeping, it should be weeping in a natural way and that to see it coming only from one eye and seeing that one of the rivulets is coming not from the tear duct, not from the corner of the eye, but from actually outside the eye and above it, so it's really not only obviously a hoax, it's not a very good one.

You would have to see a picture of this thing to get what Nickell's referring to, but I don't feel like bothering with it, so let's just stipulate that he's right. There's one rivulet coming from the outside corner of the left eye, and one coming from the inside corner of the same eye. The one on the inside actually starts well above the corner where, erm, the tear duct would be.

I feel stupid even having to point this much out. Look at Zahn's last question in the excerpt above and think about it for a second. What evidence do you have that this is fake, Mr. Smart Guy? Um, gee, I dunno -- statues can't cry? That work well enough for ya, sweet cheeks?

ZAHN: Is there any other explanation for it?

NICKELL: Well, there are, of course, always the possibility in any given case that there could be some natural explanation.

For example, sometimes the statue that has glass eyes, that's a wooden statue or plaster statue might have condensation, something like that, and be just a natural explanation. And, of course, whether it's a miracle or not is always debatable by the faithful. But science has never found a single case that's authentic, and I think the church is equally skeptical of all these cases.

This actually somewhat interesting, to hear a plausible explanation of it being a naturally occurring phenomenon. It doesn't necessarily have to be a hoax. Northern California has had some odd weather as of late. The last two weeks of November were more like April, 75º and sunny. Then around the 25th, we got a storm in from Alaska. Last week was stormy and cold, and since Thursday it's been sunny and cold, around 40-50º or so (which is cold for this area; sorry, Fargo). The point is that such drastic, sudden changes in temperature and humidity do weird things, like build up condensation in unlikely places.

Whatever the case, this mealy-mouthed objectivity is eerily similar to how the MSM has completely botched the discussion of "intelligent design", and indeed any area where religious beliefs are in conflict with science. Look, it's simple -- either the statue is weeping blood, or it isn't. Now, unless we are hopelessly insane, we stipulate that it is impossible for statues to actually weep. Therefore it is either a hoax or a naturally occurring phenomenon.

The problem is that Zahn (and obviously she's not the only culprit, or even a main culprit) portrays this as if the cranky ol' skeptic is obstinately insisting that 2+2=4, while the sincere people of faith believe with all their hearts that 2+2=6. Perhaps 2+2=5? That would bring a balanced "objectivity" to our little nuanced discussion, would it not?

No. It would not. It is neither "balanced" nor "objective" to assert that 2+2 might equal 5 -- or even 6, simply because the faithful believe it sincerely enough. Statues do not cry; the fossil record does not lie; Noah did not have baby dinosaurs on the Ark; and the fundamental principles of evolutionary development can be quite easily observed in both the plant and animal kingdoms. And one can recognize all of these scientific facts as such, and still persist in their belief that out of billions of galaxies and trillions of stars in an impossibly enormous universe, it was all created just for them, by someone who looks just like them. Faith and science are not mutually exclusive; indeed, were they not constantly hijacked by political hucksters, they could be somewhat complementary.

But like all of these sad little events, it's really about people indulging themselves anyway.

ZAHN: So when you see these crowds show up, day after day, what would you tell them about what you think they are looking at. They do believe it's a miracle.

NICKELL: They do. They are working on faith rather than evidence. If they would look at the evidence, they would see that it's really not credible. We don't see a flowing.

And there are cases like this. You know, there have been statues that wept blood. That in Italy, for example, it turned out with a DNA test that the DNA matched that of the woman who owned the statue. So they are really bad news for most of these cases when they are investigated.

ZAHN: You just heard Rusty interviewing the, I believe it was the archbishop from the church there. Would you like to investigate this if given the chance?

NICKELL: Well, I think it's always good to investigate. One would look for a better case than this, where at least at face value looked more promising or looked more mysterious.

I find this really rather laughable at face value. But we always investigate cases when we're permitted, and I think we should neither foster belief nor suppress it but just investigate with a view toward solving it.

ZAHN: In the meantime, the crowds keep coming.

And that's really all that matters. Suckers show up, we cover it. They trample each other in Walmart on Black Friday to get some deal on another discounted doodad to assuage their failures in life, and it merits coverage. Same shit, different shovel.

As an added bonus, check out the subsequent segue, as Paula prepares to pass the torch to the inimitable Larry King, who is simply worth his weight in self-parody gold:

ZAHN: And at 12 minutes before the hour, we're moving up on the start of "Larry King Live." Let's check in with him right now and find out who will be joining him tonight.

Hi Larry.

LARRY KING, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, Paula.

We've got a good show tonight. Rick Warren is with us, the author of "The Purpose Driven Life," that book has been a phenomenal best seller. He's an extraordinary guy.

And then later in the show, Donald Trump joins with Alla Wartenberg, that's the girl who got kicked off his show last night. But she's a multi-millionaire to boot. It's unusual.

All that ahead following Paula Zahn.

ZAHN: We'll be watching, Larry. Tell the Donald I said hello.

KING: I will.

Yep. That's your intrepid news-gatherin' celebramajournamalists. Rick Warren humps one leg, Donald Trump humps another, and Paula briefly recalls that incident when The Donald grabbed her ass at a party and offered a million bucks worth of Trump Tower chips for 90 seconds of combover glory. (If the carpet matches the drapes, women must just run screaming from the room.)

Hey, Larry. Tell The Donald I also said hello, and that I wish he'd stop splattering his jism all over America. I don't want to watch his stupid show, I don't want to buy his stupid books, I don't want to lose my house at his casino while he comps me $15 rum & cokes, and I don't want to hear about his next mail-order bride. How's that for fuckin' news?