Anyway. Back to the news. I am kind of shielding myself from some of the Obama/Mccain stuff. Just too painful. McCain is so far away from the seemingly principled maverick of 2000 when he called sleaze campaign tactics what they were, and stood up to the "agents of intolerance." This year, he uses the sleaze tactics and hugs the agents of intolerance.
Sigh.
One thing I will note, and I am not providing links on this one (just don't feel like it right now) is how desperate some on the right are to paint Obama as some kind of animal. That is what they mean when they say he is a closet Muslim, or a radical Christian (shouldn't you have to choose between those two?), and it is absolutely what they are trying to do by painting him as some infanticidal radical.
Obama is pro-choice, but the odious Jill Stanek is spreading around a story that Obama doesn't even care about infants who have a chance to live. To put her radicalism in respect, she recently called Michael J. Fox a "cannibal" for supporting embryonic stem cell research, and has called for the end to condom distribution in Africa. She is not an honest broker, something I found out in some real-life email exchanges over her willingness to use racist imagery to attack Native Americans.
But the part that disturbs me the most is their willingness to demonize him into some kind of monster. Those on the right seem to think that shame is only applied to liberals, and they don't even need to think about it. They should be ashamed every time some "religious" person spreads a scurrilous lie about someone. I believe there is something in the Bible about that.
***
Speaking of religious right voters, (H/t to Bruce at Mainstream Baptist) for this story:
People who listen to religious radio shows like "Focus on the Family" are less knowledgeable about current events than the average American, according to a recent survey on media consumption by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.While I cannot comprehend how Hannity and Colmes made the list, it comes as no surprise that religious radio does not encourage a thoughtful knowledge of the issues. I used to listen to Focus on the Family (before my car had a cd player) and I can't tell you how many times I heard actual, factual news spun and distorted.
Just 12 percent of regular listeners of religious radio could correctly identify which party now controls Congress, who is the current U.S. secretary of state and name the new prime minister of Great Britain.
That is ahead of regular consumers of media like "Access Hollywood" and the National Enquirer but behind viewers of TV news magazines, morning news shows and network news. The national average is 18 percent.
People who view "fake" news shows like "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" are better informed than readers of "real" news programs like "O-Reilly Factor" and "Lou Dobbs Tonight." The highest knowledge of current events was found among readers of The New Yorker and The Atlantic (48 percent), NPR (44 percent), MSNBC's "Hardball" (43 percent), and "Hannity & Colmes" at 42 percent.
Sigh.
Time for one more this morning, but one of the things I have written about a lot on this blog (I did a search one time, and need to count up how many times) is torture. The other person who has written about this as much (if not more) is Andrew Sullivan and he has had a few posts recently noting that John McCain, while he may have manufactured some of his Christian faith, actually experienced real and devastating torture. The same kind of torture that George Bush and Dick Cheney say are not torture.
The fact that John McCain can even look at Bush without puking suggests that he made some deal a long time ago to sell his soul for power. But it is Obama who is consumed by ambition. Right.
11 comments:
I recently had a 'discussion' with a co-worker about forwarding emails that contained wild accusations about Sen. Obama. When she agreed that she was aware that most weren't true, I was appalled!
She is a very devout beliver in Jesus, and I could not reconcile the two.
After a day or so, I had to go back and talk with her about bearing false witness, and I was surprised she had not even considered that in the political arena! I have seen this commonly among conservative belivers, and don't understand the disconnect.
Anyway, I am happy to report that she has reconsidered, and is very careful now to not forward anything until she checks it out.
Progress!
I was surprised she had not even considered that in the political arena! I have seen this commonly among conservative belivers, and don't understand the disconnect.
YMMV, but most Christians I grew up around only read the Bible to put them in a reflective and peaceful frame of mind, not to actually learn anything from it. Their speech, behavior and reasoning was wholly conditioned by the people around them and the people they listened to on the radio. This seems to be a fairly common situation, though I don't know whether it's the case with your coworker.
I have some witty thoughts to share, but am too busy counting my homes and pondering whether $4.99 million is the top end of the middle class to do so now.
I agree with your assessment of McCain, Streak. While I have tried not to trivialize his time in VN, he seems to be selling his soul for the sake of making himself relevant.
It is sad that torture is not an issue to conservatives, when here McCain has the opportunity--and a valuable one, I might add--to speak coherently about it and bring it to the forefront. If McCain is elected, Bushco's crimes will go unchallenged into the next presidency.
And Stanek's position is just like Coulter's. It matters not what she says. She is bashing liberals and that is all that really matters. How dare you look for substance there.
ubub,
Unless you have sold 25 million copies of your book, I don't think you have anything relevant to add to this discussion.
I think I've figured out why the Focus on the Family tidbit struck me as such a "dog bites man" type of barely newsworthy reporting. It's because it seems to be concerning people who (1) believe in hell and (2) believe that they are competent to judge who is going there by looking at their church attendance or what magical words they've said or whether they affirm a clear, specific set of doctrines. Folks who meet these two criteria will naturally do or say anything to get people to pray the magic prayer or to affirm propositions X, Y and Z; anything, up to, including and exceeding lying and bullshitting, is less of an evil than letting people go to hell. How big a stretch is it for this frame of mind to infect other areas of life, politics in particular? It would explain why FotF talks as though one's self-identification as conservative is a matter of ultimate, eternal concern.
Perhaps I don't have anything to contribute to this discussion, but you know, I am just honored that you folks would entertain the thought that I would have something to contribute to any discussion.
Leighton,
I think you are closer to the truth than you realize. Denying conservatism is tantamount to denying the faith altogether. And besides, God is a Conservative anyway.
ubub,
Glad you're a good sport. After I left that comment, I was afraid I might incur some ububian wrath. I do appreciate your contributions here, btw.
"Ububian?"
Oh God, I hop that is just the medication talking, but that almost makes sense.
here's a ububian pearl for you ...
what's that McCain and Lieberman said about the attack ads last week? lay back and enjoy it or something. more recently, you gotta keep your sense of humor. something like that.
i think our exchange shows how relationships that develop, even cyber relationships in the comments threads of some little dog's blog, play an important role in communication. especially when there are not clear answers to be found or when there is disagreement, the respect that we have toward each other and the common search for shared understanding goes a long, long way.
that's where some encounter difficulty, it seems, in that they do not have the relationship to provide context. in some cases, their actions indicate an awkwardness about developing relationships (but the fact that they return suggests they may truly wish to reach out) while in others they indicate an unwillingness to do so(why, when you can simply act like a bully or blowhard).
These surveys are interesting, but without knowing more about how they are developed and conducted, I am skeptical about drawing too much of a conclusion. Obviously, there may be other factors at work.
Post a Comment