Stones Cry Out

No, I agree with The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder that Obama did not call Sarah Palin a pig.  I don’t believe all references to “lipstick” are, from here on out, oblique references to her.  The “lipstick on a pig” word picture has been with us for a while.  It’s probably not the best word picture to use at this point in time, but I don’t think it was a personal attack.

What I’m hoping comes out of this election season is a realization by the many “professional victim” groups that sexism (or racism or homophobia) isn’t hidden in every disagreement.  So, Democrats, stinks to be on the other end of the hysteria, eh?

Update:  Speaking of hysteria, looks like the term “community organizer” is now forbidden.

At the Crain’s Business Forum this morning, [NY Gov. David] Paterson drew attention to a phrase used numerous times by speakers at the Republican National Convention to describe Barack Obama’s leadership experience: community organizer.

“I think the Republican Party is too smart to call Barack Obama ‘black’ in a sense that it would be a negative. But you can take something about his life, which I noticed they did at the Republican Convention – a ‘community organizer.’ They kept saying it, they kept laughing,” he said.

Guess some Democrats aren’t getting the realization.

The recent buzz around the conservative blogosphere (and a bit on the liberal side, too) is that Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews will no longer be anchoring MSNBC’s election coverage specials. 

I have never considered hosts of opinion shows — including Matthews and Olbermann, as well as O’Reily, Beck and Dobbs — as examples of bias at a network one way or the other.  The sum total of “opinionators” and their leanings at a network might be indicative (i.e. if they all lean one way or the other), but their specific pronouncements never seemed to me to be fair game for claiming bias.  Of course they’re biased; that’s their programs’ stock in trade.  They have an opinion, and it comes out in their “Talking Point Memo” or their interviews or whatever.  The bias is the purpose for the show.

On the other hand, bias when it comes to those in the more pure journalistic endeavors — news anchors and reporters — those folks have a higher standard to attain to.  Their stock in trade is their even-handedness and objectivity.  When they abdicate that responsibility, then I see it as fair game for scrutiny.

In this, MSNBC crossed way, way over the line putting Matthews and Olbermann in the anchor chairs for their convention coverage.  The idea that they thought they could get away with this and still insist they’re objective and balanced strained credibility to the breaking point.  All the networks had other opinion folks on to give their takes on the events of the day, and that’s fine, too.  But MSNBC put guys with their own opinion shows in the anchor chair during two events that are already very partisan.  This says a lot about the editorial leanings at the network.  At least they’re doing the right thing now, though why they thought this was ever a good idea is beyond me.  The liberal bias in the editorial room is probably mistaken for “mainstream”.

• How to … wrap a bottle (like the pro’s).
• Uhm, not a good comparison, d’ya think?
• Mr Biden and a response from the Bishop.
• Is war inevitable?
• Pre-Socratic philosophy.
• What’s happening in Afghanistan?

If Barack Obama loses the election this November (and at this point it’s impossible to say whether he will – it’s too close to call) it will be because of a series of unforced errors. They are missteps in the campaign that when taken individually don’t seem like a huge issue but when combined have the effect of totally derailing what would have otherwise been a hugely successful campaign.

Read the rest of this entry

Ed Brayton, normally quite accurate in his reporting, titles a post of his, Another Palin Lie. Ed states,

And Stephen Foley, at The Independent, has an article titled, Sale of Alaska’s state jet on eBay revealed as a lie. From Foley’s article,

Yet, here are the lines from Sarah Palin’s speech, at the RNC, in which she references said plane:

That’s it. No other references to the sale of the jet was made in her speech. Astute observers will note that she does not state that the plane was sold on eBay, nor does she state that it was sold for a profit.

It ain’t there, fellas.

Do you think, just a thought here, that her intentions (at that point in the speech) were to emphasize her attitude towards wasteful spending, and not to give a detailed accounting report of how Alaska unloaded it’s luxury jet?

Did she imply, in her RNC speech, that she had actually sold the plane on eBay? Could be. Yet, did any intrepid journalists or Democratic party operatives, armed with the not-so-secret data of the plane’s actual sale, trap Palin by asking her for specific data on how the plane was sold? Are you kidding? That would mean actually trying to get to the truth of the matter.

Truth be told, we must rewrite Foley’s paragraph, from above, as follows:

Sarah Palin bolstered her reputation as a reformer – and got one of her biggest cheers in her Republican convention speech last week – when she said she had sold put the governor’s official jet on eBay as her first act on taking office in Alaska.

Words… just words.

Note: However, John McCain’s statement, referenced above, seems to be a different matter entirely. Maybe he should just let Sarah speak for herself.

As noted in the introduction to this series, I’m blogging on two short works on Poverty, the first is Ched Myers The Biblical View of Sabbath Economics and the second is the 14th oration by St. Gregory of Nazianzus entitled “On Love for the Poor” (note I misquoted the title in the prior essay as well as Mr Myers first name). In this short essay, I’m going to attempt to precis the basic thrust of the two works. The current plan is follow this short summary with some critical assessments of the two works. The introduction was here, and the overview essay here.

Reading Mr Myers pamphlet is a little disconcerting. For that which he argues, that concern for the poor, charity, and turnings one heart and aspirations to God instead of the material transient world are all well known and established virtues in Christian living. This where he concludes, where he is driving and this conclusion is not wrong. But it must be admitted, that it is very rare to use the validity of a conclusion to justify an argument … and alas Mr Myers reasons and arguments are very very bad. Mr Myers, as noted in the introduction, follows a unusual hermeneutic for extracting meaning from Scripture. That is he views Scripture via a lens of economics … with a caveat on that description that one must note that his views of economics themselves are also somewhat unusual. Read the rest of this entry

Charlie Martin at the Explorations blog has put together an (ever-growing) list of 60+ rumors about Sarah Palin.  Most have links to their debunking, and a few are actually…er…”bunked”.  Bookmark it.  I have a feeling we’ll all need to refer to this often in the next 2 months (and with any luck, the next 4 years).

• Modern day slavery … in Haiti, they are called restavéks.
• Being cynical about not being cynical. “Publius” at Obsidian Wings rewrites history, noting “America was whipped up in a frenzy by October 2002? regarding Iraq. Frenzy? Yah, riiiight we all remember the riots, the mass demonstrations, the impassioned speeches … or not.
• Siris on political experience.
• A pro-life series of posts begun, starting with infanticide.
• Country roots vs city sensibilities and Ms Palin.
• How to talk to a non-cyclist … heh. (HT: Fat Cyclist)

Commenter JA recently alluded to “arguments” made by the pro-life movement in which he allued to the pro-life movement arguing that a fundamental argument against contraception is as a “tool” punish those having pre-marital sex with babies. One might also note some similar allusions, that people oppose equal wage legislation because they “hate women” (or that that “hatred” of women is the basis of pro-life arguments). Another example is to point that the GOP in general don’t care for the plight of the poor.

Look, I could argue that the real reason atheists deny God is because they are afraid of what God’s existence implies for their moral choices and especially their rejection of repentance in general. I too could argue that the Progressives/Democrats don’t care for the poor, for the policies (such as their ecological movement) they push so often are directly harmful to the poor (for example, carbon reduction policies will cost money … especially impacting rising energy costs. Who will be impacted more, Mr Gore and his cronies … or the poor).

The point is, none of the actual arguments used by either party devolve to the argument used by those parties. Atheists do not claim that the reason they deny God is the implications for their eschatological future if He did exist. Catholics (for example) never use in their arguments for contraception that they oppose contraception for utilitarian reasons related to reducing pre-marital sexual activity.

As I noted once before, I had an extended discussion with a gentleman (email exchange) about SSM. I broke it off when he admitted that it was his view that the “only argument ever used against SSM was based on bigotry.” That is, any argument presented was just protective coloration and dishonest dialog to conceal one’s ingrained prejudices against gays. This is both essentially in itself bigotry of a different sort and a dishonest (uncharitable) violation of the unwritten agreement one enters into when one begins discussion.

I think in general people address or try to attribute motives behind arguments which may or may not exist. Unless you have the powers attributed to the Shadow (who “knows” bwahahahaha) then you don’t know what the motives behind the argument used by those whom you are addressing. You should (being charitable) allow your interlocutor the benefit of the doubt and assume he is honest. That is, that the arguments he gives for his policies are in point of fact, the actual reasons for holding the said position.

Honest dialog insists that you take as honestly believed the arguments your interlocutor presents.

It would be interesting if the “fairness doctrine” in media instead of “giving equal time” to opposing points of view in media instead was aimed instead at making sure our dialog was honest.

Sarah Palin is confusing the Left and the mainstream media.

And should we be surprised? In their myopic view of the world, they lack the ability to focus in on anything but that which surrounds them – anything but that which they are already engaged with. Within the realm of their understanding it seems to be nothing short of ludicrous that John McCain would seriously present the likes of Sarah Palin as candidate for Vice President of the United States. Their refined rationalism recoils at the thought of a right-wing, former small-town mayor, gun-lovin’, pro-life, Bible-believing woman being second in command – a mere heartbeat away from becoming POTUS. Indeed, the vile attacks levied against Palin, since her addition to the ticket, are all too telling.

John Podhoertz links to a NY Times article (HT: Crunchy Con) which illustrates the myopia of the media. From the NY Times article,

You mean that, as a Christian, she believes that the sovereign God (of the Bible) has… a will? That said God also has… a plan? And that we are to pray to said God for his will to be done through… his plan?

Horrors!

Perhaps the reporters for the NY Times piece, in their zest for research, should do a bit of it on what constitutes the Christian faith, not to mention finding out what the Bible says on the subject.

Better yet, how about they take Melinda’s suggestion, and listen to some of the sermons from the pastor at the church which Palin attends (sort of an end-around on the whole Jeremiah-Wright thing).

Or, maybe, listen to the excitement of the people…

Now that the presidential campaign is in full swing, the big question in media circles is when Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin will be available to them to answer their questions. This is to be expected since they spent the last week since McCain’s announcement acting like a petulant child because McCain dared to nominate someone they hadn’t vetted.

The main problem the media faces is that they are no longer the gatekeepers of information. Ever since the collapse of the monopoly controlled by CBS, NBC, and ABC they’ve struggled to keep themselves relevant. And while they do serve a purpose, it is not as great as it used to be.

My guess is that Governor Palin will make media appearances in the coming weeks but will be careful to select outlets that are willing to treat her with the respect that she deserves rather than trying to assault her with smears and “gotcha” questions. She doesn’t need to bother sitting down with media outlets that have shown themselves to be hypocrites. They don’t deserve the privilege of being able to ask her any questions.

The Strategy Page calls it “an image problem”, but they’re description of the result of the problem goes deeper.  I think the next generation is embarrassed by them.  So much so that they are becoming less convinced of the religion behind it.

Hamas has an image problem, and it’s getting worse. It’s gotten so bad that the 30 year old son (Mosab Yousef) of one of the Hamas founders (Hassan Yousef) has not only renounced Hamas, but has become a Christian. Mosab is fed up with the terrorism/”destroy Israel” approach the Arab world has embraced over the last sixty years. Mosad notes, as have many other Arabs, that this has not worked.

The conversion angle is something Moslems are trying to keep quiet. Mosab Yousef’s father pleaded with his son to keep quiet about the conversion (which took place 18 months ago). The elder Yousef knows that this is not an isolated incident. Many young Moslems are abandoning Islam. Most do so quietly. In Iran, the clerics that run the country are shocked at secret police reports about a growing number of young Iranians who have, in effect, abandoned Islam. This sort of thing is happening all over the Moslem world, but especially in Arab countries. The people who switch to Islamic radicalism get all the headlines, not the larger numbers who just walk away from Islam are largely ignored. In the Palestinian territories, there is also a growth in the number of Sunni Moslems who are switching to the Shia version (as championed by Iran). But many other Moslems are openly distancing themselves from the conservative forms of Islam (like the well funded Saudi Wahhabism). One reason this trend is kept quiet is because Islamic militants are inclined to kill such traitors, if the switch is done too openly. Thus the elder Yousef’s plea that his son keep quiet, lest he attract the murderous attention of Islamic radicals out to impose the death sentence on apostates.

The move to Christianity, and even moves just away from the more radical versions if Islam, can only be a good thing for the Middle East, and frankly the rest of the world, too.

…in Chicago.

An estimated 123 people were shot and killed over the summer. That’s nearly double the number of soldiers killed in Iraq over the same time period.

Waiting for Obama to call for the troops police to pull out.  It’s lost, right?