It was a pretty cool movie, but I'm not talking about that... I'm asking for help.
While driving home from class the other night I was disappointed to be reminded that the two local NPR stations I could reach offered music for middle-aged white guys in place of the news or talk I was hoping to find. The one station played mostly old Stax titles with the occasional Elvis Costello??? thrown in. The other was Mama Jazz... 6 nights a week... 8 to midnight. Being a middle-aged white guy, I like both of those offerings most of the time, but for some reason, I was really hoping for some evening news type of fare or maybe a discussion of some current topic by experts in the field. It was then that it dawned on my to flip over to the AM dial. There's always talk over there.
After locating about twenty "local" sports shows from Chicago to Florida - physical range remains one of the coolest things about AM radio - I managed to find The Savage Report. I figured what the heck, at least it was talk. I'm open to other people's opinions. It had been a while since I'd had my intelligence insulted anyway. I picked a great night. He was ranting about the treatment of dogs in China. Noting that if our PETA and other animal rights people were as true to their cause as they claimed, they'd stop pretending to protest here in the states, "where it's easy" and head on over to China to stop this horrible abuse. I quickly remembered why I don't bother listening to anything other than sports on AM radio anymore. First of all, since when does Savage acknowledge anyone or anything's rights outside of America. He must be going pinko on us. Second, is it OK if we apply this rationale to the righteous right who normally camp out in AM land?
As fate would have it, the next morning's NPR Morning Edition featured a story about forced abortions in China. Most people know that Chinese families are allowed to abort girls since they're only allowed one child per family. This story focused on what happens when this rule is ignored. Rural families who farm to survive often exceed the one child per household rule. Many get away with it since they're so remotely located and often interact very little with others, government or otherwise. But when the government gets wind of the violations they send out med students to perform mandatory in-home abortions if they catch you in time. You can imagine the "success rate" of these inexperienced students performing in these conditions. I couldn't have asked for a better application of Savage Logic. I could just hear his voice saying, "if these abortion protestors were true to their cause, they wouldn't bother protesting here in the states where it's easy..." The sad part of applying his logic is that it points out how much more desperately such protest is needed in China than it is here. According to ChristianityToday.com, 70% of Americans believe some form of abortion should be legal, but in China, and I'm just guessing here, no one wants to be told they have to have an abortion! And now, ladies and gentlemen, Michael Savage champions human rights in China! Freaky.
So why then did 2 of 6 major advertisers specifically tell MSNBC they didn't want to run their ads during Savage's TV debut? Who wouldn't want to back this champion of human rights? And why did the other 4 tell MSNBC not to run their ads during his show in the future after his debut? Give this man a break. But the translation help I need most now is this: how will Savage and the rest of the right spin this into some kind of liberal media censorship? Isn't "let the market prevail" a mantra of the right? And wouldn't this represent true market rule? I wonder what it is about the vitriol Savage spews that couldn't withstand the light of television... and worse yet, why does it still exist even in the dark of AM radio nights? Who listens to this guy anyway and why? Even the grumpy old Bill O'reilly manages to mix a little common sense in with his curmudgeonly criticism of people who think for themselves. Anyway... I don't even remember what needed to be translated here, but it had something to do with how Savage wanted people to think and how I translated it initially. I knew I must have messed something up in that translation.
Here's the other one: Bush's support of the UAE port security contract strikes me as a step in developing a partnership with our middle eastern neighbors. I like that idea. In fact, it's the first thing he's said or done consistent with the "spread democracy" justification for the war that I've seen or heard yet. If spreading democracy all over the Arab world was really the objective (and I only doubt that because it was the second or third reason given AND because there seem to be much more effective ways of doing it than flat out invasion/forced regime change) then this partnership is actually a natural extension of that idea. So either he meant it in the first place, and the contract is phase two, or he was lying and now he's covering his ass.
Either way, I like the move. Partnership stands a far better chance of protecting Americans and American interests than world domination. No matter how big and bad the Goliath, there's always a terrorist Davy with a sling and some rocks. Pissing the world off, severing ties with allies, providing radicals with a live-fire training facility hasn't been making many of us feel all that much more secure. Putting people on the payroll usually makes them much more amenable to the cause.
So here's where the translation trouble lies: if Congress and the Right were so game for this administration's moves so far, then why the sudden lack of support for the logical next step? (Granted, congress wasn't THAT supportive of the war in the first place. They said we'll give you the power to declare IF you MUST... and that MUST still hasn't been proven to many peoples' satisfaction, but apparently no one cares about that anymore) Is it because ignorant Americans think this is a war against Arabs? Don't they realize it's to help Arabs? What better way to show that than to trust them with the contract to manage our ports? OK, translate that.
And now, a word from a great Republican:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (Teddy Roosevelt, 1918)
Friday, February 24, 2006
Thursday, February 16, 2006
3 Pages about Moors and Christians
Ever heard of the Festival of the Moors and the Christians in Spain? I didn't figure you did. It's a festival that celebrates... yeah, celebrates the Moors wiping out the Christians and then the Christians wiping out the Moors. Pretty weird, eh? Actually it celebrates the fact that the violence is over. Well anyway, it involves simulated battles, defeats and triumphs, and ends with the "followers of the cross" victorious, often capped off by an effigy of Muhammad, whose head is full of gunpowder, being blown up. Now get this part, both Christians and Muslims have participated in this celebration since the 13th century. That's right, Christians and Muslims! And no one gets bent out of shape over it. Imagine. Somewhere in this world, two groups of the faithful celebrate the fact that their violent past is the past and that they now live together peacefully, worshipping the same God.
Here's my point: Don't condemn someone of another faith based on the actions of the few even if those few get all the headlines in the "liberal media."
Here's why: If all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, then the way many Christians have been responding to the news lately is pure promotion of evil. Passing on uninformed opinions as facts incites violence at some point. That's a far cry from doing nothing.
Here's my summary of the point: If you criticize entire groups of people based on a couple of assholes who claim to represent those people, you're an asshole! Assholes perpetuate evil. Quit it!
Page 2 - Get off Dick Cheney’s back. Here in Ohio (God's country), hospitals are legally bound to report the gunshot wounds they treat. Assuming there’s a similar rule in Texas, it wasn’t VP Cheney’s job to report the incident. I don’t blame him for not wanting to. I do blame him for shooting a guy in the face, and to his credit, he’s taken full responsibility for that. What more do you want? Oh sure, some will say this incident could serve as a metaphor for the administration’s reckless behavior and complete disregard for human rights. Some may even say the VP’s hesitance to report the incident indicates his believing he’s above the law. Some might even say this is the inevitable result of a disturbing pattern of behavior from him and the entire administration he runs from behind the curtain, but I’ll leave that crap to the liberal media... you know, those left leaning commies who suggested being on the wrong end of a shotgun blast was somehow the victim’s fault. They'll take care of the conjecture. All I'm sayin' is leave the guy alone. It's none of our business that our vice president shot a man in the face.
Page 3 - The next sign that the brainwashing is complete: Google, whipping boy for trading in China?! How can we single Google out simply for agreeing to China’s rules in order to do business in China? Are they the first American company to do business in China? Are they the first American company to agree to play by China’s rules?
Google this: “General Motors investment China”
Now which of these two companies deserves to be singled out for their efforts in China? Google is offering a modified version of their American-made service to the people of China. It’s either that or they offer nothing to the people of China and give up on the capitalist idea of expanding their business. Either way, their headquarters and “manufacturing facilities" and employees are all still here in the states. No jobs are going to China. In fact, it may even result in more American jobs. The Chinese people will have access to more information with the modified version of Google than they would have without it.
GM has invested billions of dollars in plants in China. Have they done this simply in the interest of providing their products to the Chinese or does the oppressive nature of the rules have something to do with it? Low wages, abundant unskilled employees, extremely limited employer liability/workplace safety/environmental regulations? Hmmmm... do the math. In addition, GM jobs in the U.S. are disappearing. Is that too much math for you?
So Google agrees to the rules and offers their product in China and in doing so, “endorses the oppressive government’s continued degradation of human rights,” but GM purposely takes advantage of that degradation and we back home who have lost jobs, tax base, whatever, as a result scream “boycott Google” in one breath and “Buy American, Buy a Chevy” in the next. I don't get it. Then again, I don't get a lot of things.
NOTE: GM's investment in the Chinese auto industry was simply the most readily available example to hold up against the evil of Google. To their credit, you could substitute many companies' names in place of theirs in this post.
Here's my point: Don't condemn someone of another faith based on the actions of the few even if those few get all the headlines in the "liberal media."
Here's why: If all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, then the way many Christians have been responding to the news lately is pure promotion of evil. Passing on uninformed opinions as facts incites violence at some point. That's a far cry from doing nothing.
Here's my summary of the point: If you criticize entire groups of people based on a couple of assholes who claim to represent those people, you're an asshole! Assholes perpetuate evil. Quit it!
Page 2 - Get off Dick Cheney’s back. Here in Ohio (God's country), hospitals are legally bound to report the gunshot wounds they treat. Assuming there’s a similar rule in Texas, it wasn’t VP Cheney’s job to report the incident. I don’t blame him for not wanting to. I do blame him for shooting a guy in the face, and to his credit, he’s taken full responsibility for that. What more do you want? Oh sure, some will say this incident could serve as a metaphor for the administration’s reckless behavior and complete disregard for human rights. Some may even say the VP’s hesitance to report the incident indicates his believing he’s above the law. Some might even say this is the inevitable result of a disturbing pattern of behavior from him and the entire administration he runs from behind the curtain, but I’ll leave that crap to the liberal media... you know, those left leaning commies who suggested being on the wrong end of a shotgun blast was somehow the victim’s fault. They'll take care of the conjecture. All I'm sayin' is leave the guy alone. It's none of our business that our vice president shot a man in the face.
Page 3 - The next sign that the brainwashing is complete: Google, whipping boy for trading in China?! How can we single Google out simply for agreeing to China’s rules in order to do business in China? Are they the first American company to do business in China? Are they the first American company to agree to play by China’s rules?
Google this: “General Motors investment China”
Now which of these two companies deserves to be singled out for their efforts in China? Google is offering a modified version of their American-made service to the people of China. It’s either that or they offer nothing to the people of China and give up on the capitalist idea of expanding their business. Either way, their headquarters and “manufacturing facilities" and employees are all still here in the states. No jobs are going to China. In fact, it may even result in more American jobs. The Chinese people will have access to more information with the modified version of Google than they would have without it.
GM has invested billions of dollars in plants in China. Have they done this simply in the interest of providing their products to the Chinese or does the oppressive nature of the rules have something to do with it? Low wages, abundant unskilled employees, extremely limited employer liability/workplace safety/environmental regulations? Hmmmm... do the math. In addition, GM jobs in the U.S. are disappearing. Is that too much math for you?
So Google agrees to the rules and offers their product in China and in doing so, “endorses the oppressive government’s continued degradation of human rights,” but GM purposely takes advantage of that degradation and we back home who have lost jobs, tax base, whatever, as a result scream “boycott Google” in one breath and “Buy American, Buy a Chevy” in the next. I don't get it. Then again, I don't get a lot of things.
NOTE: GM's investment in the Chinese auto industry was simply the most readily available example to hold up against the evil of Google. To their credit, you could substitute many companies' names in place of theirs in this post.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Never argue politics or religion
see comments from last post if you're wondering where all this came from...
One common meaning of the term "liberal" is playing loose with the meaning of something as in addressing one's drunken fraternity brothers as follows: "Gentlemen... and I use the most liberal definition of that term"
With that in mind, it is liberal, to me, to vest too much into one sentence or phrase that anyone utters. Speech is, by its nature, much more loosely used than the written word, so it should be especially suspect. But even the written word shouldn't be given that much credence. Take, for instance, newspaper articles. We all know that the "liberal" media only chooses for publication the worst quotes the president ever utters, thereby maintaining their agenda of making him appear stupid. But actions always speak louder than words both written and spoken. For instance, the president's actions during the Vietnam conflict speak much louder than his words about understanding the sacrifice our troops are making at his command. His actions in reforming health care and social security speak louder than his words on those issues. His actions like declaring war speak louder than his words about being pro-life. But I digress.
It is likewise "liberal" to me to vest too much stock in words interpreted over thousands of years, at the request of powerful sinners with their own, especially non-Christian, agendas. The history and distribution of Christianity is steeped with corruption at every turn. (Note I'm not questioning Christianity itself, just many of the purveyors of it) Those who sought only their administration's dominance were often the ones commissioning updated versions of the Bible. Because those who opposed such re-writes were often wiped out entirely, there's little hope of ever retrieving anything remotely objective about the modern English versions we have today. Sorry, no signing statements available. However, this fact doesn't even remotely mean that Christianity can't be followed. The modern Bible, flawed by man's greed as it may be, still gives us great general ideas to work with and Christ, himself, gave us the specifics that matter. While we could argue and divide ourselves for years over every passage in the Bible... take for instance the idea that the word "homosexual" never appeared in it, we'd all be better off if we focused on what does matter and what is clear and subject to far less debate. (oops, I've used another word very liberally... no one debates anymore! We polarize, ignore and condemn. Very UNChristian)
Christ's words were made obvious/clarified beyond question through His actions. These actions, not anyone's words, converted Roman soldiers on the spot. The actions of subsequent Christians also doomed by Romans, converted the Romans who were to kill those Christians. They didn't haggle over what some passage meant. The Christian said a prayer and calmly accepted his fate and, that show of faith converted the would-be executioner. Back to Jesus though. Jesus didn't criticize or condemn; He forgave. He was His brother's keeper. He helped both those who could and couldn't help themselves. He welcomed sinner and saint alike. By this I don't mean there is no sin. Having knowledge of this and blatantly ignoring it is sin. Treating anyone in any way other than you'd expect to be treated is sin. Failing to recognize that every woman is someone's mom, sister, or daughter and then treating her in any other way than you would treat your mom, sister, or daughter is sin. Worshipping anyone or anything that isn't God is sin. We know this. It's that easy. Jesus both told us and exemplified these things for us. When we look at the big picture of the Book, and the little picture of Jesus's life, it's pretty clear. This is NOT a liberal interpretation. It is my humble opinion that any other interpretation would be.
For instance, claiming to be the candidate or party of God... not just sin, but blasphemy. Testing the will of radical followers by mocking their symbols of God (also blasphemy) would be sinful. Jesus wouldn't do that. Assuming your interpretation of a Biblical passage that's already been translated by hundreds of people over thousands of years entitles you to some higher degree of Earthly power than someone who interprets it another way and acting on that belief in a way other than how Jesus would act on it is a sin. You can believe whatever you want, but when it comes to your actions... maybe even your opinions of others to the extent that those opinions guide your actions, use that Jesus test. It's simple.
Much is made today of the complexity of modern life, but it's not that complex. You don't think Jesus dealt with complexity? He dealt with more real complexity than most of us will ever experience. He did it with grace by ignoring those intricacies, avoiding the cymini sectores that our modern politicians have tried to turn us into. Christians didn't trust politicians, didn't even get involved (as Christians) in politics for a reason. If we truly believed what we claim to, we would continue in that tradition. Politics is a necessary evil. Men need it in order to somewhat peacefully live together in an ever-shrinking world. But we don't need to further dirty the name of Christianity by pretending the two will ever work together.
Sure, all empires fall eventually, but ours was doing pretty well until we mixed this cocktail. Let's unmix it before the trend is unstoppable.
One common meaning of the term "liberal" is playing loose with the meaning of something as in addressing one's drunken fraternity brothers as follows: "Gentlemen... and I use the most liberal definition of that term"
With that in mind, it is liberal, to me, to vest too much into one sentence or phrase that anyone utters. Speech is, by its nature, much more loosely used than the written word, so it should be especially suspect. But even the written word shouldn't be given that much credence. Take, for instance, newspaper articles. We all know that the "liberal" media only chooses for publication the worst quotes the president ever utters, thereby maintaining their agenda of making him appear stupid. But actions always speak louder than words both written and spoken. For instance, the president's actions during the Vietnam conflict speak much louder than his words about understanding the sacrifice our troops are making at his command. His actions in reforming health care and social security speak louder than his words on those issues. His actions like declaring war speak louder than his words about being pro-life. But I digress.
It is likewise "liberal" to me to vest too much stock in words interpreted over thousands of years, at the request of powerful sinners with their own, especially non-Christian, agendas. The history and distribution of Christianity is steeped with corruption at every turn. (Note I'm not questioning Christianity itself, just many of the purveyors of it) Those who sought only their administration's dominance were often the ones commissioning updated versions of the Bible. Because those who opposed such re-writes were often wiped out entirely, there's little hope of ever retrieving anything remotely objective about the modern English versions we have today. Sorry, no signing statements available. However, this fact doesn't even remotely mean that Christianity can't be followed. The modern Bible, flawed by man's greed as it may be, still gives us great general ideas to work with and Christ, himself, gave us the specifics that matter. While we could argue and divide ourselves for years over every passage in the Bible... take for instance the idea that the word "homosexual" never appeared in it, we'd all be better off if we focused on what does matter and what is clear and subject to far less debate. (oops, I've used another word very liberally... no one debates anymore! We polarize, ignore and condemn. Very UNChristian)
Christ's words were made obvious/clarified beyond question through His actions. These actions, not anyone's words, converted Roman soldiers on the spot. The actions of subsequent Christians also doomed by Romans, converted the Romans who were to kill those Christians. They didn't haggle over what some passage meant. The Christian said a prayer and calmly accepted his fate and, that show of faith converted the would-be executioner. Back to Jesus though. Jesus didn't criticize or condemn; He forgave. He was His brother's keeper. He helped both those who could and couldn't help themselves. He welcomed sinner and saint alike. By this I don't mean there is no sin. Having knowledge of this and blatantly ignoring it is sin. Treating anyone in any way other than you'd expect to be treated is sin. Failing to recognize that every woman is someone's mom, sister, or daughter and then treating her in any other way than you would treat your mom, sister, or daughter is sin. Worshipping anyone or anything that isn't God is sin. We know this. It's that easy. Jesus both told us and exemplified these things for us. When we look at the big picture of the Book, and the little picture of Jesus's life, it's pretty clear. This is NOT a liberal interpretation. It is my humble opinion that any other interpretation would be.
For instance, claiming to be the candidate or party of God... not just sin, but blasphemy. Testing the will of radical followers by mocking their symbols of God (also blasphemy) would be sinful. Jesus wouldn't do that. Assuming your interpretation of a Biblical passage that's already been translated by hundreds of people over thousands of years entitles you to some higher degree of Earthly power than someone who interprets it another way and acting on that belief in a way other than how Jesus would act on it is a sin. You can believe whatever you want, but when it comes to your actions... maybe even your opinions of others to the extent that those opinions guide your actions, use that Jesus test. It's simple.
Much is made today of the complexity of modern life, but it's not that complex. You don't think Jesus dealt with complexity? He dealt with more real complexity than most of us will ever experience. He did it with grace by ignoring those intricacies, avoiding the cymini sectores that our modern politicians have tried to turn us into. Christians didn't trust politicians, didn't even get involved (as Christians) in politics for a reason. If we truly believed what we claim to, we would continue in that tradition. Politics is a necessary evil. Men need it in order to somewhat peacefully live together in an ever-shrinking world. But we don't need to further dirty the name of Christianity by pretending the two will ever work together.
Sure, all empires fall eventually, but ours was doing pretty well until we mixed this cocktail. Let's unmix it before the trend is unstoppable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)