Let's get this out on the table before we go any further. As a rule of thumb, I'm suspicious of all people who claim to talk to God. I just am.
With that being said, I surprisingly came across this headline on CNN this past weekend:
Will this 13-year-old child-poet be considered for possible sainthood?
Before I even read one single word of the story, Jaded Fred had already passed judgement.
CNN, promoting a religious article? What's the catch?
13 Year Old Saint? Doubtful.
Poet Saint? Very Doubtful.
I then read the first sentence, remember only the first sentence, and was even MORE JADED!
"A champion is a winner, a hero... someone who never gives up, even when the going gets rough... someone who overcomes challenges, even when it requires creative solutions... someone who plays the game, even when the game is called life... especially when the game is called life..." -- Mattie J.T. Stepanek
That poetry is nothing special.
Mattie Stepanek? The article is written by Jeni Stepanek. His MOM is championing his Sainthood?
Why does the poem sound familiar? Because it reminds me of System of a Down's Sugar.
"I play Russian roulette everyday, a man's sport...With a bullet called life, yeah, mama, called life" -Serj in 1998
Already steamed, I continued to read the rest of the missive and continued to poke holes in the Mother's narrative in EVERY SINGLE PARAGRAPH.
Then I had a little epiphany. I knew a saint in real life. Instead of trying to figure out if a bereaved Mother is trying to run the long con on the Catholic Church, (You can check out her website here.)
I should leave the jaded opinions to the Bishop of Rome and his Patriarchs.
I should use the last sliver of light in my dark, dark heart to be promoting the works of someone I know to be a saint. This is not a bit, this is not hyperbole. Today I will start working on my statement on behalf of someone I knew personally who deserves sainthood. I will do the research and present my case at a later date. I apologize for having shirked my responsibilities in the past and will set up a separate page on Beacon of Speech to get the ball rolling. It may not be today, or tomorrow, or in the next few years, but I will finish clarifying what I witnessed before my passing.
And in the latest version of he-said, she-said with Donald Trump, I don't feel like being jaded is a curse, but a gift. Advice Columnist E. Jean Carroll now claims that Donald Trump raped her 23 years ago. Do I believe her? Well, kinda. Do I believe him? Well, kinda?
I think what happened that specific day is that Trump and Carroll had a brief, consensual, sexual encounter. Please let me explain.....
I think that E. Jean Carroll's description of that night was mostly accurate. Accurate with one exception, that being the omission that for a fleeting moment she was down with the tryst. What people fail to point out is that E. was not a naive young lady at the time. Carroll was pushing 50 and had been around the block once or twice. Because she knew multi-millionaire Trump a little bit, they probably had a flirtatious relationship. Trump saw his shot and took it.
I think Carroll's angle for many years was 'if I knew the event would have been short and gross, I wouldn't have done it.' That's not rape, that's regret.
And I think that Trump looked at Carroll yesterday on the cover of New York Magazine and said 'I never had sex with that old bat.' If he looked at her picture from the date of the alleged attack, he'd probably say 'oh, crap, that's the chick I cheated on my wife with.' Again, Trump would have regret. Not that he did it, but that he got caught. If he cheated on Marla Maples hundreds of times (feasible), he may not remember all of the women he cheated on her with. (Don't get me wrong, that's a HORRIBLE defense. But I'm not talking about you or me here, I'm talking about Donald Trump and shame doesn't appear to be in his vocabulary.)
2 tipoffs that my theory is correct.
1. Carroll goes out of the way to point out the her attacker's penis was small. Instead of focusing on bringing her attacker to justice, she is focusing on embarrassing her attacker. Also, instead of focusing on bringing her attacker to justice, she is focusing on selling books that say how Trump (and Moonves) attacked her. If she went to the authorities in the 90's, she could have stopped these men in their tracks. At the end of the day, she monetized her "attacks." You can scream at me that No Means No and you'd be 100% correct. But you can't say "if I knew what a bad president Trump would be, I would have said No." That's not the way it works.
2. Listen, if Carroll really is wearing the jacket that she wore that night on the Cover of the New Yorker, wouldn't there possibly be some "evidence" to give to the police? Which goes back to she never went to the police. We are not talking about a scared 15 year old kid here. We are talking about someone who had a platform to expose her attackers. She could have went to her editors at Rolling Stone and said 'Donald Trump raped me, please let me do an
exposé.' I guarantee you that Rolling Stone would have given her the green light for that story. Also, let's take Trump's name away from the allegations. Let's say that John the Mailman did the same exact thing to Carroll. Would she have gone to the police that day? Would she be writing about the time John the Mailman assaulted her in her book, now on sale at Amazon?
Wow. Talk about 2 stories on the opposite sides of the Moral Spectrum.