Rob Monti,
Your Favorite MonT-SteR!
Blogs with
MonT-SteR Appeal
Alpha & Omega Min.
Atheism Presupposes Theism
Atheism Sucks!
Christians Behaving Badly
Come Reason Ministries
Facing the Challenge
His Hand is On the Door
Let's Try Freedom
ProLifeBlogs
The Thinklings
World Magazine Blog
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Live comments on the Saddleback Civil Forum
Well, here's my ultimate take on the whole thing.
I think Obama is a well-spoken man who is at ease with himself. On the stump, I've found him to be rather haughty and arrogant -- the accusation of messiah-complex that is often leveled at him is not without warrant. But tonight, he was self-effacing, conversational, friendly, likable. I can understand why people are taken with him.
If you listen to him carefully enough, however, you hear inconsistencies that cast doubt on the steadiness of his core principles. Recall that when he had to distance himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his speech more or less threw his grandmother under the bus as a knee-jerk racist after the fashion of "typical white people" (Obama attempted to do damage control on that comment after the fact, but not successfully IMHO). Contrast that with tonight, when he told Rick Warren that his grandmother is one of the great sages in his life. I'm confused...
Plus, I just find the lion's share of his thinking and politics noxious. The guy's a socialist -- no two ways about it. His discussion of the Supreme Court's role was just plain weird (I wanted to say inane, but let's be charitable), and his position on abortion is essentially a punt on the central human rights issue so he can maintain a politically expedient pro-choice posture (too bad those in the womb can't vote).
Turning to McCain, readers of my blog know that I'm not his biggest fan. Campaign finance reform was nothing short of a brazen assault on the First Amendment. He was the chief champion of that legislation, and it flies in the face of the oath a president takes to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, he's been a sell-out on immigration reform (or, more precisely, amnesty for illegal aliens). So I'm predisposed to being extraordinarily skeptical of McCain as a presidential candidate.
That said, he is a consistently pro-life candidate, which is important to me. The annual slaughter of 40 million unborn babies is nothing short of a modern holocaust of shocking proportions, and IT MUST END. I could never, in good conscience, vote for someone who is pro-choice. And he does hold to a number of conservative issues (keeping taxes low, tough stance on national security, constitutionalist judges, etc.). From my perspective, he's definitely preferable to Sen. Obama.
I thought McCain did pretty well tonight, although I found him stiff at times (especially when he discussed his personal faith). And he seemed to revert here and there to stump speech mode, something I think Obama avoided more successfully. Even so, I think McCain came across in a surprisingly warm, engaging fashion (as opposed to some stoic, old fart of a curmudgeonly war hero). In any case, in a contest of substance versus fluff, McCain won hands down. His black eyes: a rambling, non-answer on privacy vs. security; no clear enunciation of policy with respect to when and how much America should act as world policeman.
I'd like to express my appreciation to Rick Warren and Saddleback for a number of things:
8:04 p.m.
Question segment #1 is going to deal with leadership issues.
First question to Barack has to deal with the three wisest people who have influenced him.
His answer:
Barack Obama (BO): Difficult youth. Experimented with drugs. Associates struggles as a young man with selfishness -- so preoccupied with his own dissatisfaction that he couldn't see the needs of others. (A candid answer, I think.) America's greatest moral failure in his lifetime is its failure to abide by the precept of doing good to "the least of one's brethren." Applies to poverty, racism, sexism, and not providing ladders of opportunity.
RW: Common ground and common good. Did you ever go against party loyalty and self-interest in the interest of America?
BO: Cites campaign finance reform. (Blech. This is a terrible example, as it stomps brazenly all over the First Amendment. Sorry, Barack -- not in the best interest of the country.)
RW: What's the most significant position you've held that you ended up changing your mind on?
BO: Welfare reform. Felt that welfare had to be changed, but was concerned that the bill Bill Clinton signed would prove disastrous. But it worked better than anticipated. Convinced that work is the centerpiece of social policy. Provides a sense of both purpose and community. (Obama is to applauded here -- too bad this philosophy doesn't filter into the rest of his policy ideas.)
RW: What's the most gut-wrenching decision you had to make, and how did you process that?
BO: Cites his anti-war stance. (I find this to be a disingenuous answer. Hindsight is 20/20, Barack. He's touting his vaunted prescience with respect to the Iraq war being ill-conceived and unjust. He said he had doubts with respect to WMD from the outset. So even though Russia, France, Britain, Israel, and the US all had intelligence on Saddam's WMD program, you were singularly discerning -- above and beyond the intelligence capabilities of multiple nations. Stop insulting my IQ. Barack's anti-war stance is grounded in ideology before evidence, and as such it was not a gut-wrenching decision at all.)
Commercial break
8:20 p.m.
Rick warren asked Obama about his faith. He's professing that Jesus died for his sins, but says that "hopefully" his sins will be washed away. ("Hopefully" isn't exactly the orthodox Christian position on the efficacy of Jesus' sacrifice, but we won't quibble too much right now.)
Rick says that he's getting to the "tough" questions.
Abortion! Rick says he has to deal with this issue all the time. Cites the statistic of 40 million abortions per year. At what point does a gestating baby get human rights? (Yay! I'm so glad he asked this question!)
BO: States that deciding when a gestating baby is fully human is "above my pay grade." He's pro-choice, believes in Roe v. Wade -- not because he believes in abortion, but because he doesn't think women make the decision to have an abortion casually. Says the goal should be to reduce the # of abortions.
RW: Has Obama ever voted to limit or reduce the # of abortions?
BO: He's against late-term abortion. If you believe that life begins at conception, he can't argue. But he can say, "Can we work together to reduce the # of unwanted pregnancies?" How do we provide resources that allow a woman to keep a child? (I think these are specious, or at least tertiary questions -- is abortion wrong or not? If wrong, it should be outlawed, plain and simple).
RW: Define marriage.
BO: Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. As a Christian, it's a sacred union. God's in the mix.
RW: Would you support constitutional protection for that definition of marriage?
BO: No. Historically, we haven't defined marriage federally. It's a state issue.
Interrupted by first-born son asking to watch a movie. Actually, he climbed on my head. Hang on...
8:40 p.m.
RW: Define rich.
BO: $150k/yr. down is middle class to poor. $250k/yr. and above is rich. (What about $151k/yr. to $249k/yr?). $150k/yr. and below will see a tax cut under his plan. Asserts again that $250k+/yr. is "rich." (He still hasn't addressed that apparent no-man's land between $150k and $250k/yr. Does he realize that?)
Obama's answers on the purpose of the Supreme Court and which justice he wouldn't nominate were -- well -- strange. It's designed only to limit the power of the chief executive? Huh? What about 9th grade civics -- highest body in the judicial branch, created to interpret and clarify law, and all that? And Barack's assessment of Clarence Thomas was essentially that he is a dunce and therefore unworthy of being on the court. He wouldn't nominate Scalia just because they disagree (what are the nature of those disagreements, Barack?), and he doesn't like the way John Roberts presides over the court because he's too compliant vis-a-vis the Oval Office. Sorry folks, but this is pablum. And he accuses Justice Thomas of thoughtlessness...
RW: There are 148 million orphans in the world. They don't need to be in orphanages. They need to be in families. Would there be a willingness to create an emergency plan for orphans?
BO: Thinks it's a great idea. Wants to work with international organizations. Part of the plan needs to be preventing unwanted children with good health care (my hunch is that this means Planned Parenthood style solutions in Barack speak).
RW: What should we do about religious persecution?
BO: Cites our complex relationship with China -- they're a trading partner, but they are actively engaged in persecuting people of faith. We need to "bear witness" and "speak out." We also need to lead by example. (Ugh. He's turning this into an anti-Gitmo rant. Can we stay on the subject?) We can't talk about religious persecution when Gitmo exists. (Dangblasted moral equivalence at work. As though Gitmo and sending Christians to labor camps are the same thing. Gimme a break.)
RW: Why do you want to be president?
BO: (This is The MonT-SteR's interpretation of what he said.) Basically, we're only great to the degree that we're socialist (disguised cleverly in language of empathy). That's why he wants the office, so he can turn us more in that direction. No thanks, Barack. Just say no to Marx and Lenin.
Next up, McCain's turn. Rather than type out RW's questions, I'm just going to organize it topically.
9:04 p.m.
McCain on Leadership
Wise leaders he'd depend on:
McCain led against party's interest and his own best interest on climate change, spending, tort reform, etc. The most trying was when he was first in Congress, Reagan wanted to send Marines to Beirut in a peace-keeping mission. He opposed Reagan, and the marines ended up getting bombed.
McCain's most significant reasoned flip-flop: Off-shore drilling. He knows that people disagree, but states that it's a national security issue. We're sending $700 billion to parties in the world who don't have our best interests at heart. We can't allow that. We need to have a multi-faceted, broad-based approach to energy policy and reform.
Most gut-wrenching decision: When McCain was in prison camp. Was going to be released, but refused. Was the toughest decision he made. Took lots of prayer.
Next up, worldview issues.
McCain on Worldview
Talks about his faith. Mentions salvation and forgiveness through Christ in about four words, seems very uncomfortable. Mentions that Christian faith embraces the world. (Hope that is a confession of mankind's universal need for Christ rather than theological universalism....) Falls into a story about Christmas in his POW camp, how when he was allowed to stand outside his cell on Christmas day, a guard came and drew a cross in the dirt. It was a special moment when enemy combatants were merely two Christians joining in worship in a dark place.
Abortion -- McCain states that a baby has human rights at the moment of conception. Has a 25-year pro-life record. Will be a pro-life president with pro-life policies.
Marriage -- Union between one man and one woman. People can enter into legal agreements and so forth (parallel to Obama's support for civil unions). If the courts attempted to force unilateral recognition of same-sex marriage, at that point McCain supports a Constitutional amendment.
Stem cells -- very great struggle and dilemma for the pro-life community. McCain wants stem cell research, but very optimistic about adult stem cell research. As it progresses, the debate will be moot.
Does evil exist? Yes -- it needs to be defeated. He's going to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Transcendent battle of the 21st century is the struggle between the West and extremist, radical Islam. It is palpably evil and must be defeated.
McCain says he would not have nominated Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens. President's responsibility is great. Nomination should be based on proven record and constitutional perspective (not legislating from the bench). Proud of Bush for nominating Roberts and Alito.
On faith-based organizations: Can faith-based organizations hire those who adhere to their belief system? (Barack felt that they could not if receiving federal funds.) McCain says yes -- to require otherwise is to cripple the organization itself.
Education -- should there be merit pay for the best teachers? Yes. Choice and competition is the solution. Vouchers work. Home schooling works (yes!). Charter schools work. Choice and competition is a simple solution, but it has the potential to reform our education system. This is the civil rights issue of the 21st century -- sending children to failing schools is unjust.
Taxation -- McCain's wants everybody to get wealthy. Doesn't believe in taking the money of the rich. Small business owners work hard, and are classified as rich. But raising taxes on them would be onerous and damage the economy. Jokes that $5 million/yr. is the cut-off for "rich," and acknowledges that he's probably going to be taken out of context for that comment. Joked sardonically about spending $3 million of federal money on a DNA study of bears in Montana -- was that a paternity issue or a criminal issue? It's funny, but it isn't. During hard economic times, that kind of spending should be eradicated.
When our right to privacy and national security collide, what takes precedence? Mentions right to privacy with respect to union ballots (to eliminate intimidation). (Mm. McCain's answer is rambling here. Nothing substantive -- he's ranting about political infighting. Acknowledges the tension, but doesn't present any solutions or coherent method of handling the question RW put to him. Sorry Sen. McCain, you blew it on this one....)
Commercial break -- I have to say thus far that I've found McCain far more substantive. He got stiff when he talked about his own faith life and what Christianity means to him (I think that makes him uncomfortable). Obama was far more comfortable discussing his faith. But Obama really is all about feel-good fluff. So far, McCain is (for the most part) giving more cogent answers. Honestly, I wasn't expecting that.
9:40 p.m.
McCain on America's Responsibility to the World
Freedom is worth dying for. There is a lot of pain and suffering in the world, so we can't possibly remedy everything. America's most precious commodity is her blood. We've shed our blood for others in a way no other nation has. Just as we defeated communism, we can defeat radical Islam. RW asks when we should intervene in situations like Darfour, Georgia, etc. McCain says that we need to stop genocide whenever we can (but particularly when it's in the interest of our national security). We need to marshal world forces. RW mentions that Russia is reasserting itself in Georgia and Poland, asks McCain to comment. He mentions the bloodshed and suffering, saddened by Russia's behavior. Mentions that Georgia was one of the earliest Christian nations. Georgian President was educated in the U.S., returned to forge a successful democracy. We need to not only negotiate a cease-fire, but insist that Georgia's territorial integrity be respected. It wasn't an accident that the presidents of other former Eastern Bloc countries flew to Georgia to show solidarity. This conflict is also about Russian control over energy. We need to send a message to the Russians that such behavior is not acceptable. (Unfortunately, McCain doesn't outline quite what that message should be beyond angry denunciations. A little fluff here....)
On religious persecution -- use the bully pulpit. Cites Reagan's example (he called the Soviets the evil empire, called upon them to tear down the Berlin wall). Judeo-Christian principles dictate that we help the oppressed in the world. Knows first-hand the price and preciousness of freedom.
Why he wants to be President: Wants to inspire a generation of Americans to serve a cause greater than themselves. Time to unify the country. America wants hope and optimism. Wants people who won't vote for him to know that he'll be their president as well.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Well, here's my ultimate take on the whole thing.
I think Obama is a well-spoken man who is at ease with himself. On the stump, I've found him to be rather haughty and arrogant -- the accusation of messiah-complex that is often leveled at him is not without warrant. But tonight, he was self-effacing, conversational, friendly, likable. I can understand why people are taken with him.
If you listen to him carefully enough, however, you hear inconsistencies that cast doubt on the steadiness of his core principles. Recall that when he had to distance himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his speech more or less threw his grandmother under the bus as a knee-jerk racist after the fashion of "typical white people" (Obama attempted to do damage control on that comment after the fact, but not successfully IMHO). Contrast that with tonight, when he told Rick Warren that his grandmother is one of the great sages in his life. I'm confused...
Plus, I just find the lion's share of his thinking and politics noxious. The guy's a socialist -- no two ways about it. His discussion of the Supreme Court's role was just plain weird (I wanted to say inane, but let's be charitable), and his position on abortion is essentially a punt on the central human rights issue so he can maintain a politically expedient pro-choice posture (too bad those in the womb can't vote).
Turning to McCain, readers of my blog know that I'm not his biggest fan. Campaign finance reform was nothing short of a brazen assault on the First Amendment. He was the chief champion of that legislation, and it flies in the face of the oath a president takes to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, he's been a sell-out on immigration reform (or, more precisely, amnesty for illegal aliens). So I'm predisposed to being extraordinarily skeptical of McCain as a presidential candidate.
That said, he is a consistently pro-life candidate, which is important to me. The annual slaughter of 40 million unborn babies is nothing short of a modern holocaust of shocking proportions, and IT MUST END. I could never, in good conscience, vote for someone who is pro-choice. And he does hold to a number of conservative issues (keeping taxes low, tough stance on national security, constitutionalist judges, etc.). From my perspective, he's definitely preferable to Sen. Obama.
I thought McCain did pretty well tonight, although I found him stiff at times (especially when he discussed his personal faith). And he seemed to revert here and there to stump speech mode, something I think Obama avoided more successfully. Even so, I think McCain came across in a surprisingly warm, engaging fashion (as opposed to some stoic, old fart of a curmudgeonly war hero). In any case, in a contest of substance versus fluff, McCain won hands down. His black eyes: a rambling, non-answer on privacy vs. security; no clear enunciation of policy with respect to when and how much America should act as world policeman.
I'd like to express my appreciation to Rick Warren and Saddleback for a number of things:
- Thanks for hosting this forum. It was very informative, and I think it gave us a good glimpse into the minds and hearts of the candidates. I appreciate you taking the lead on forging a dialogue between the candidates and the faith community
- Thanks, Rick, for asking tough questions that the media will typically shy away from (especially with respect to Obama). I think it was apropos and fair for each candidate to be asked the same set of questions.
- I really appreciated the judicious avoidance of direct questions about climate change. I still maintain that Rick Warren is grievously in error for embracing pop global warming theory, and I was really glad not to have to listen to such poppycock tonight. Looking forward to Rick's own "wise flip-flop" on this issue.
8:04 p.m.
Question segment #1 is going to deal with leadership issues.
First question to Barack has to deal with the three wisest people who have influenced him.
His answer:
- His wife. She's both wise and honest.
- His grandmother. (Would this be the typically white racist grandmother he's alluded to in previous public gaffes?)
- Cites Ted Kennedy as an influence in domestic policy (YUCK!). Wants a forum of advisors that have a breadth of views. (I guess this means they would span from left-center to moonbat. :)
Barack Obama (BO): Difficult youth. Experimented with drugs. Associates struggles as a young man with selfishness -- so preoccupied with his own dissatisfaction that he couldn't see the needs of others. (A candid answer, I think.) America's greatest moral failure in his lifetime is its failure to abide by the precept of doing good to "the least of one's brethren." Applies to poverty, racism, sexism, and not providing ladders of opportunity.
RW: Common ground and common good. Did you ever go against party loyalty and self-interest in the interest of America?
BO: Cites campaign finance reform. (Blech. This is a terrible example, as it stomps brazenly all over the First Amendment. Sorry, Barack -- not in the best interest of the country.)
RW: What's the most significant position you've held that you ended up changing your mind on?
BO: Welfare reform. Felt that welfare had to be changed, but was concerned that the bill Bill Clinton signed would prove disastrous. But it worked better than anticipated. Convinced that work is the centerpiece of social policy. Provides a sense of both purpose and community. (Obama is to applauded here -- too bad this philosophy doesn't filter into the rest of his policy ideas.)
RW: What's the most gut-wrenching decision you had to make, and how did you process that?
BO: Cites his anti-war stance. (I find this to be a disingenuous answer. Hindsight is 20/20, Barack. He's touting his vaunted prescience with respect to the Iraq war being ill-conceived and unjust. He said he had doubts with respect to WMD from the outset. So even though Russia, France, Britain, Israel, and the US all had intelligence on Saddam's WMD program, you were singularly discerning -- above and beyond the intelligence capabilities of multiple nations. Stop insulting my IQ. Barack's anti-war stance is grounded in ideology before evidence, and as such it was not a gut-wrenching decision at all.)
Commercial break
8:20 p.m.
Rick warren asked Obama about his faith. He's professing that Jesus died for his sins, but says that "hopefully" his sins will be washed away. ("Hopefully" isn't exactly the orthodox Christian position on the efficacy of Jesus' sacrifice, but we won't quibble too much right now.)
Rick says that he's getting to the "tough" questions.
Abortion! Rick says he has to deal with this issue all the time. Cites the statistic of 40 million abortions per year. At what point does a gestating baby get human rights? (Yay! I'm so glad he asked this question!)
BO: States that deciding when a gestating baby is fully human is "above my pay grade." He's pro-choice, believes in Roe v. Wade -- not because he believes in abortion, but because he doesn't think women make the decision to have an abortion casually. Says the goal should be to reduce the # of abortions.
RW: Has Obama ever voted to limit or reduce the # of abortions?
BO: He's against late-term abortion. If you believe that life begins at conception, he can't argue. But he can say, "Can we work together to reduce the # of unwanted pregnancies?" How do we provide resources that allow a woman to keep a child? (I think these are specious, or at least tertiary questions -- is abortion wrong or not? If wrong, it should be outlawed, plain and simple).
RW: Define marriage.
BO: Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. As a Christian, it's a sacred union. God's in the mix.
RW: Would you support constitutional protection for that definition of marriage?
BO: No. Historically, we haven't defined marriage federally. It's a state issue.
Interrupted by first-born son asking to watch a movie. Actually, he climbed on my head. Hang on...
8:40 p.m.
RW: Define rich.
BO: $150k/yr. down is middle class to poor. $250k/yr. and above is rich. (What about $151k/yr. to $249k/yr?). $150k/yr. and below will see a tax cut under his plan. Asserts again that $250k+/yr. is "rich." (He still hasn't addressed that apparent no-man's land between $150k and $250k/yr. Does he realize that?)
Obama's answers on the purpose of the Supreme Court and which justice he wouldn't nominate were -- well -- strange. It's designed only to limit the power of the chief executive? Huh? What about 9th grade civics -- highest body in the judicial branch, created to interpret and clarify law, and all that? And Barack's assessment of Clarence Thomas was essentially that he is a dunce and therefore unworthy of being on the court. He wouldn't nominate Scalia just because they disagree (what are the nature of those disagreements, Barack?), and he doesn't like the way John Roberts presides over the court because he's too compliant vis-a-vis the Oval Office. Sorry folks, but this is pablum. And he accuses Justice Thomas of thoughtlessness...
RW: There are 148 million orphans in the world. They don't need to be in orphanages. They need to be in families. Would there be a willingness to create an emergency plan for orphans?
BO: Thinks it's a great idea. Wants to work with international organizations. Part of the plan needs to be preventing unwanted children with good health care (my hunch is that this means Planned Parenthood style solutions in Barack speak).
RW: What should we do about religious persecution?
BO: Cites our complex relationship with China -- they're a trading partner, but they are actively engaged in persecuting people of faith. We need to "bear witness" and "speak out." We also need to lead by example. (Ugh. He's turning this into an anti-Gitmo rant. Can we stay on the subject?) We can't talk about religious persecution when Gitmo exists. (Dangblasted moral equivalence at work. As though Gitmo and sending Christians to labor camps are the same thing. Gimme a break.)
RW: Why do you want to be president?
BO: (This is The MonT-SteR's interpretation of what he said.) Basically, we're only great to the degree that we're socialist (disguised cleverly in language of empathy). That's why he wants the office, so he can turn us more in that direction. No thanks, Barack. Just say no to Marx and Lenin.
Next up, McCain's turn. Rather than type out RW's questions, I'm just going to organize it topically.
9:04 p.m.
McCain on Leadership
Wise leaders he'd depend on:
- General Patraeus -- great military leader. Took us from defeat to victory.
- John Lewis -- (I don't know who this is...)
- Meg Whitman -- CEO of eBay.
McCain led against party's interest and his own best interest on climate change, spending, tort reform, etc. The most trying was when he was first in Congress, Reagan wanted to send Marines to Beirut in a peace-keeping mission. He opposed Reagan, and the marines ended up getting bombed.
McCain's most significant reasoned flip-flop: Off-shore drilling. He knows that people disagree, but states that it's a national security issue. We're sending $700 billion to parties in the world who don't have our best interests at heart. We can't allow that. We need to have a multi-faceted, broad-based approach to energy policy and reform.
Most gut-wrenching decision: When McCain was in prison camp. Was going to be released, but refused. Was the toughest decision he made. Took lots of prayer.
Next up, worldview issues.
McCain on Worldview
Talks about his faith. Mentions salvation and forgiveness through Christ in about four words, seems very uncomfortable. Mentions that Christian faith embraces the world. (Hope that is a confession of mankind's universal need for Christ rather than theological universalism....) Falls into a story about Christmas in his POW camp, how when he was allowed to stand outside his cell on Christmas day, a guard came and drew a cross in the dirt. It was a special moment when enemy combatants were merely two Christians joining in worship in a dark place.
Abortion -- McCain states that a baby has human rights at the moment of conception. Has a 25-year pro-life record. Will be a pro-life president with pro-life policies.
Marriage -- Union between one man and one woman. People can enter into legal agreements and so forth (parallel to Obama's support for civil unions). If the courts attempted to force unilateral recognition of same-sex marriage, at that point McCain supports a Constitutional amendment.
Stem cells -- very great struggle and dilemma for the pro-life community. McCain wants stem cell research, but very optimistic about adult stem cell research. As it progresses, the debate will be moot.
Does evil exist? Yes -- it needs to be defeated. He's going to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Transcendent battle of the 21st century is the struggle between the West and extremist, radical Islam. It is palpably evil and must be defeated.
McCain says he would not have nominated Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens. President's responsibility is great. Nomination should be based on proven record and constitutional perspective (not legislating from the bench). Proud of Bush for nominating Roberts and Alito.
On faith-based organizations: Can faith-based organizations hire those who adhere to their belief system? (Barack felt that they could not if receiving federal funds.) McCain says yes -- to require otherwise is to cripple the organization itself.
Education -- should there be merit pay for the best teachers? Yes. Choice and competition is the solution. Vouchers work. Home schooling works (yes!). Charter schools work. Choice and competition is a simple solution, but it has the potential to reform our education system. This is the civil rights issue of the 21st century -- sending children to failing schools is unjust.
Taxation -- McCain's wants everybody to get wealthy. Doesn't believe in taking the money of the rich. Small business owners work hard, and are classified as rich. But raising taxes on them would be onerous and damage the economy. Jokes that $5 million/yr. is the cut-off for "rich," and acknowledges that he's probably going to be taken out of context for that comment. Joked sardonically about spending $3 million of federal money on a DNA study of bears in Montana -- was that a paternity issue or a criminal issue? It's funny, but it isn't. During hard economic times, that kind of spending should be eradicated.
When our right to privacy and national security collide, what takes precedence? Mentions right to privacy with respect to union ballots (to eliminate intimidation). (Mm. McCain's answer is rambling here. Nothing substantive -- he's ranting about political infighting. Acknowledges the tension, but doesn't present any solutions or coherent method of handling the question RW put to him. Sorry Sen. McCain, you blew it on this one....)
Commercial break -- I have to say thus far that I've found McCain far more substantive. He got stiff when he talked about his own faith life and what Christianity means to him (I think that makes him uncomfortable). Obama was far more comfortable discussing his faith. But Obama really is all about feel-good fluff. So far, McCain is (for the most part) giving more cogent answers. Honestly, I wasn't expecting that.
9:40 p.m.
McCain on America's Responsibility to the World
Freedom is worth dying for. There is a lot of pain and suffering in the world, so we can't possibly remedy everything. America's most precious commodity is her blood. We've shed our blood for others in a way no other nation has. Just as we defeated communism, we can defeat radical Islam. RW asks when we should intervene in situations like Darfour, Georgia, etc. McCain says that we need to stop genocide whenever we can (but particularly when it's in the interest of our national security). We need to marshal world forces. RW mentions that Russia is reasserting itself in Georgia and Poland, asks McCain to comment. He mentions the bloodshed and suffering, saddened by Russia's behavior. Mentions that Georgia was one of the earliest Christian nations. Georgian President was educated in the U.S., returned to forge a successful democracy. We need to not only negotiate a cease-fire, but insist that Georgia's territorial integrity be respected. It wasn't an accident that the presidents of other former Eastern Bloc countries flew to Georgia to show solidarity. This conflict is also about Russian control over energy. We need to send a message to the Russians that such behavior is not acceptable. (Unfortunately, McCain doesn't outline quite what that message should be beyond angry denunciations. A little fluff here....)
On religious persecution -- use the bully pulpit. Cites Reagan's example (he called the Soviets the evil empire, called upon them to tear down the Berlin wall). Judeo-Christian principles dictate that we help the oppressed in the world. Knows first-hand the price and preciousness of freedom.
Why he wants to be President: Wants to inspire a generation of Americans to serve a cause greater than themselves. Time to unify the country. America wants hope and optimism. Wants people who won't vote for him to know that he'll be their president as well.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: Barack Obama, John McCain, politics
Saturday, July 12, 2008
RIP, Tony Snow
I was very sad to learn this afternoon that Tony Snow -- journalist, commentator, news anchor, radio host, musician, intellectual, public servant, and family man -- died of cancer early this morning at 2 a.m.
He was one of a kind in politics. Friends and colleagues have labeled him something of a renaissance man, which he certainly was; just look at all the roles he fulfilled and how expertly he discharged them. He's credited (however begrudgingly by some) with changing the culture of the White House press corps during his short tenure as press secretary.
How?
I first heard Tony Snow on talk radio, and I was impressed with the breadth of his knowledge, as well as his eloquence and erudition on the fly. I always found him very stimulating to listen to. But his unique way with contentious callers was even more impressive. It didn't matter how stridently they disagreed or how vehemently (or insultingly) they argued, Tony had a cool head that just didn't get rattled. Even when he was hard-hitting in his rejoinder to an interlocutor, there was an undeniable kindheartedness that came through -- so much so that my wife, who doesn't really like political theater or commentary, would say, "Tony's a good guy," and gladly listen to him. I suspect that his ideological polar opposites found themselves doing much the same thing in spite of themselves.
"Civility in political discourse" is reverently and longingly bandied about a great deal these days, usually in association with a call to "bipartisanship" -- a political cuss word that, in today's climate, means ideological compromise for one side of the aisle and not the other. Tony Snow embodied civility in political discourse, and he proved that it can be done without sacrificing core principles.
Others have spoken of him as a man of deep faith, which was doubtless the reservoir of his gentility. I remember a mailbag segment on FoxNews Sunday featuring a viewer's scathing attack on Tony's belief in the resurrection of Christ, likening it to belief in Xenu and the Easter Bunny. Tony's response was rendered in unabashed fashion, but with a kindly smile: "Atheistic jabs notwithstanding, yes, I believe!"
It seems fitting, therefore, to close with some of Tony Snow's own words from a Christianity Today article about reconciling the faith that so guided and informed his life and the disease he finally succumbed to this morning:
Farewell, Tony. Your heart, intellect, and aplomb endeared you to so many; among public figures on the scene today, you really were one of my heroes. Thanks for giving the most you ever could offer to God and man. You will be sorely missed.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
I was very sad to learn this afternoon that Tony Snow -- journalist, commentator, news anchor, radio host, musician, intellectual, public servant, and family man -- died of cancer early this morning at 2 a.m.
He was one of a kind in politics. Friends and colleagues have labeled him something of a renaissance man, which he certainly was; just look at all the roles he fulfilled and how expertly he discharged them. He's credited (however begrudgingly by some) with changing the culture of the White House press corps during his short tenure as press secretary.
How?
I first heard Tony Snow on talk radio, and I was impressed with the breadth of his knowledge, as well as his eloquence and erudition on the fly. I always found him very stimulating to listen to. But his unique way with contentious callers was even more impressive. It didn't matter how stridently they disagreed or how vehemently (or insultingly) they argued, Tony had a cool head that just didn't get rattled. Even when he was hard-hitting in his rejoinder to an interlocutor, there was an undeniable kindheartedness that came through -- so much so that my wife, who doesn't really like political theater or commentary, would say, "Tony's a good guy," and gladly listen to him. I suspect that his ideological polar opposites found themselves doing much the same thing in spite of themselves.
"Civility in political discourse" is reverently and longingly bandied about a great deal these days, usually in association with a call to "bipartisanship" -- a political cuss word that, in today's climate, means ideological compromise for one side of the aisle and not the other. Tony Snow embodied civility in political discourse, and he proved that it can be done without sacrificing core principles.
Others have spoken of him as a man of deep faith, which was doubtless the reservoir of his gentility. I remember a mailbag segment on FoxNews Sunday featuring a viewer's scathing attack on Tony's belief in the resurrection of Christ, likening it to belief in Xenu and the Easter Bunny. Tony's response was rendered in unabashed fashion, but with a kindly smile: "Atheistic jabs notwithstanding, yes, I believe!"
It seems fitting, therefore, to close with some of Tony Snow's own words from a Christianity Today article about reconciling the faith that so guided and informed his life and the disease he finally succumbed to this morning:
Picture yourself in a hospital bed. The fog of anesthesia has begun to wear away. A doctor stands at your feet; a loved one holds your hand at the side. "It's cancer," the healer announces.
The natural reaction is to turn to God and ask him to serve as a cosmic Santa. "Dear God, make it all go away. Make everything simpler." But another voice whispers: "You have been called." Your quandary has drawn you closer to God, closer to those you love, closer to the issues that matter—and has dragged into insignificance the banal concerns that occupy our "normal time."
The moment you enter the Valley of the Shadow of Death, things change. You discover that Christianity is not something doughy, passive, pious, and soft. Faith may be the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. But it also draws you into a world shorn of fearful caution. The life of belief teems with thrills, boldness, danger, shocks, reversals, triumphs, and epiphanies. Think of Paul, traipsing though the known world and contemplating trips to what must have seemed the antipodes (Spain), shaking the dust from his sandals, worrying not about the morrow, but only about the moment.
There's nothing wilder than a life of humble virtue -- for it is through selflessness and service that God wrings from our bodies and spirits the most we ever could give, the most we ever could offer, and the most we ever could do.
The natural reaction is to turn to God and ask him to serve as a cosmic Santa. "Dear God, make it all go away. Make everything simpler." But another voice whispers: "You have been called." Your quandary has drawn you closer to God, closer to those you love, closer to the issues that matter—and has dragged into insignificance the banal concerns that occupy our "normal time."
The moment you enter the Valley of the Shadow of Death, things change. You discover that Christianity is not something doughy, passive, pious, and soft. Faith may be the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. But it also draws you into a world shorn of fearful caution. The life of belief teems with thrills, boldness, danger, shocks, reversals, triumphs, and epiphanies. Think of Paul, traipsing though the known world and contemplating trips to what must have seemed the antipodes (Spain), shaking the dust from his sandals, worrying not about the morrow, but only about the moment.
There's nothing wilder than a life of humble virtue -- for it is through selflessness and service that God wrings from our bodies and spirits the most we ever could give, the most we ever could offer, and the most we ever could do.
Farewell, Tony. Your heart, intellect, and aplomb endeared you to so many; among public figures on the scene today, you really were one of my heroes. Thanks for giving the most you ever could offer to God and man. You will be sorely missed.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: Christianity, politics, Tony Snow
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
MonT-SteR Super Tuesday coverage
Update #1 - 8:30 p.m.
Update #2 - 10:22 p.m.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Update #1 - 8:30 p.m.
Update #2 - 10:22 p.m.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: 2008 election, politics, Super Tuesday
Monday, November 05, 2007
Things that make you go hmmmm....
I received an e-mail update today from a local ministry, urging prayer for tomorrow's election. The message contained the following titillating tidbit:
Well, now, just who is this mysterious former senator? Would his first name happen to be George? And, if so, did this discussion regarding the efficacy of prayer (or the lack thereof) vis-a-vis elections come before or after the infamous "macaca" incident? If before, I wonder if Jim Webb's predecessor might now reconsider his stance on prayer?
Just a thought...
In other non-political news, the entire MonT-SteR CLAN goes to the baby doctor tomorrow to find out whether or not BabY MonT-SteR #2 will be a boy or a girl. I'm so excited!
I'll post the results of our ultrasound tomorrow...
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
I received an e-mail update today from a local ministry, urging prayer for tomorrow's election. The message contained the following titillating tidbit:
I once had a conversation with a U.S. Senator from Virginia, telling him how I had prayed for him and others and how I believed prayer had influenced a number of elections. I was surprised when he said to me, "I don't really believe prayer influences elections." While respecting his leadership, I politely disagreed with him, because I sensed he was courting trouble. Though he was heavily favored to win and even rumored to be a presidential candidate, he lost his next election to another man who serves as a Senator for the State of Virginia.
Well, now, just who is this mysterious former senator? Would his first name happen to be George? And, if so, did this discussion regarding the efficacy of prayer (or the lack thereof) vis-a-vis elections come before or after the infamous "macaca" incident? If before, I wonder if Jim Webb's predecessor might now reconsider his stance on prayer?
Just a thought...
In other non-political news, the entire MonT-SteR CLAN goes to the baby doctor tomorrow to find out whether or not BabY MonT-SteR #2 will be a boy or a girl. I'm so excited!
I'll post the results of our ultrasound tomorrow...
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: announcements, politics, prayer, The MonT-SteR
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Is The MonT-SteR a Fred Head?
Fred Thompson formally announced his candidacy for president this evening on Leno's show. Perpetually pessimistic pundit John LeBoutillier has already hailed Thompson's entrance into the race as a big yawn, saying it's too little too late. But I'm not so sure.
Citing my own example only provides anecdotal evidence, but for my own part, the race has been a big yawn up to this point. Although I'm loosely considering them both, I'm deeply suspicious of Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani. I have sworn that I would never vote for McCain because of thatstupid perniciously unconstitutional campaign finance law he co-sponsored. As Hillary's latest fundraising scandal proves, McCain-Feingold is a textbook case of legislative impotence. It hasn't solved one dadburned thing. Any man who thinks such a brazen assault on the First Amendment ought to be codified has ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS sitting in the Oval Office. Thankfully, his candidacy is more or less DOA at this point. Mike Huckabee, on the other hand, has some potential, but I don't see him as being electable on a national scale. In all, I'm disenchanted with the entire field of Republican candidates.
Enter Fred tonight. I have a few qualms about the fact that he announced on Leno's show (I think presidential politics and pop culture are a bad mix), but it may have been a brilliant tactic. He's certainly differentiated himself from the rest of the field. He explained his rationale for getting into the race late, saying that 1) people traditionally have announced after Labor Day, and 2) nobody's going to pass him over just because he got in later than everybody else. I, for one, am already sick of debates and campaigns (it's much too early for all this) -- so I found Thompson's rationale and relaxed demeanor somewhat appealing. As a result, for the first time this election cycle, I visited a candidate's Web site. I listened and I read a little. And I liked what I saw. If you check his Web site (www.fred08.com), it is apparent that Thompson is willing to teach about conservative ideals -- something that a presidential candidate hasn't done well (to my knowledge) since Reagan.
I'm not jumping on the Thompson bandwagon just yet, but I haven't been as interested in any of the Republican candidates as I am in him. Stay tuned -- The MonT-SteR may well become a Fred Head.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Fred Thompson formally announced his candidacy for president this evening on Leno's show. Perpetually pessimistic pundit John LeBoutillier has already hailed Thompson's entrance into the race as a big yawn, saying it's too little too late. But I'm not so sure.
Citing my own example only provides anecdotal evidence, but for my own part, the race has been a big yawn up to this point. Although I'm loosely considering them both, I'm deeply suspicious of Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani. I have sworn that I would never vote for McCain because of that
Enter Fred tonight. I have a few qualms about the fact that he announced on Leno's show (I think presidential politics and pop culture are a bad mix), but it may have been a brilliant tactic. He's certainly differentiated himself from the rest of the field. He explained his rationale for getting into the race late, saying that 1) people traditionally have announced after Labor Day, and 2) nobody's going to pass him over just because he got in later than everybody else. I, for one, am already sick of debates and campaigns (it's much too early for all this) -- so I found Thompson's rationale and relaxed demeanor somewhat appealing. As a result, for the first time this election cycle, I visited a candidate's Web site. I listened and I read a little. And I liked what I saw. If you check his Web site (www.fred08.com), it is apparent that Thompson is willing to teach about conservative ideals -- something that a presidential candidate hasn't done well (to my knowledge) since Reagan.
I'm not jumping on the Thompson bandwagon just yet, but I haven't been as interested in any of the Republican candidates as I am in him. Stay tuned -- The MonT-SteR may well become a Fred Head.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: 2008 election, Fred Thompson, politics
Friday, May 25, 2007
Non sequiturs and broken toilets
Update (Sat., May 26, 2007, 3:37 p.m.):
I sent letters to Senators Warner and Web outlining (in principle) my opposition to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S. 2611). Here's the letter I sent to Sen. Warner:
Update (Sat., May 26, 2007, 3:37 p.m.):
I sent letters to Senators Warner and Web outlining (in principle) my opposition to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S. 2611). Here's the letter I sent to Sen. Warner:
The Honorable John Warner
United States Senate
225 Russell Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Warner:
I am gravely concerned about the impact that the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S. 2611) will have upon our nation if it passes.
As the grandson of an Italian immigrant who entered America through Ellis Island in the 1920s, I believe that controlled, legal immigration has enriched the United States and served, in part, to make it the great nation it is today. Unfortunately, CIRA does not meet the definition of controlled, legal immigration because of its amnesty provision.
The estimated 12 million illegal aliens are here for one simple reason: they have flouted our laws. American citizenship implies respect for and obedience to our laws and creeds. If the very foundation of an illegal alien's presence here is criminality, it is palpably unreasonable to expect that they will make good American citizens once granted amnesty. Thus, the act of decriminalizing their presence here is misguided at best, dangerous at worst.
Moreover, CIRA's amnesty provision is manifestly unjust and unfair to every immigrant who has respected the laws of our country and submitted to the legal process required to gain citizenship. Decriminalizing illegal aliens already in our country says to others waiting to become American citizens that circumventing our immigration laws is without consequence. This has the undesirable effect of encouraging further illegal immigration.
Some have cited the necessity of CIRA given the logistical and financial challenges associated with enforcing existing immigration law. I utterly reject this premise. The negative impact that illegal aliens have had on medical systems in border cities is well documented, as are the tens of billions of taxpayer dollars that go each year to illegals who have illicit access to the welfare system. For reasons stated above, CIRA will exacerbate such problems rather than mitigate them. On that basis, it seems apparent that our long-term economic and security interests are better served by bearing the expense and effort associated with enforcing current immigration law now.
As a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I am registering my fervent opposition to CIRA with your office. In addition, I respectfully request that you vote against this ill-conceived, pernicious bill that has the potential to harm our country deeply if not irreparably. If you support it, please know that you will forfeit both my vote and my support for your office in perpetuity.
Sincerely,
Robert R. Monti
It's after 4 a.m.
I am sitting at my computer at this ungodly hour for two reasons:
Now, understand friends, that I am not anti-immigration. Far from it. I am the grandson of an Italian immigrant. I cannot tell you how grateful I am that America welcomed my grandfather and his family here in the late 1920s. Controlled, legal immigration is a good thing, and it's part of what has made the United States a great nation.
Illegal immigration is another matter, for a number of reasons:
Given the gravity of the issue, I was utterly dismayed to hear Sen. John McCain (R, Arizona) defend his stance on immigration with one of the biggest, most INANE non sequiturs I have ever heard. There are 12 million illegal aliens in our country, he said, and that makes enforcing current illegal immigration law (i.e., DEPORTING them) untenable. The only alternative, according to McCain's logic, is this awful amnesty bill that he co-sponsored with the likes of Ted Kennedy.
My problems with Sen. McCain's rotgut reasoning are as follows:
Folks, I don't mean to be hard-nosed here, and I don't wish to overlook the human element in all this either. Those who know me well know me as a man of compassion. The Business Week article I cited above makes reference to a family of illegal immigrants that has started its own business and worked its way into the middle class. I applaud their hard work and ingenuity, and I don't relish the thought of uprooting them and sending them packing. But the incontrovertible facts remain. They broke the law in order to get where they are. They made the choice to do that. They knowingly risked the consequences. We are culpable only insofar as we failed to enforce our laws. And so we face the painful prospect of forcing many such families out of the country.
The guilt we may feel at that notion should not stem from the enforcement of the law. It should stem rather from the libertine foolishness and cowardice that brought us this mess. And now the likes of Sen. McCain and President Bush would have us codify it and call it progress.
Not on your life, gentlemen.
I am sitting at my computer at this ungodly hour for two reasons:
- Our bedroom bathroom toilet decided to break in the middle of the night. To keep our floor from being flooded, I had to enlist the assistance of my sleepy wife and dig the toolbox out of the closet. The only fix at 3:45 a.m. was to just close the valve that feeds the toilet until we can get maintenance in here. Unfortunately, the valve was stuck, so I had to crawl around on the floor with a wrench to get it to turn. Nothing like having your face in a toilet in the wee hours of the night.
- As a result of these activities, I can't get back to sleep at the moment. So I'm blogging.
Now, understand friends, that I am not anti-immigration. Far from it. I am the grandson of an Italian immigrant. I cannot tell you how grateful I am that America welcomed my grandfather and his family here in the late 1920s. Controlled, legal immigration is a good thing, and it's part of what has made the United States a great nation.
Illegal immigration is another matter, for a number of reasons:
- Illegal immigrants (NOT "undocumented" immigrants, which is one of the Left's favorite designer propagandist phrases), by definition, must flout our nation's laws to be here. The very foundation of their presence in our country is criminality. Some political elements are keen to dismiss this fact by casting illegal immigrants as innocents who have merely come to the U.S. for economic opportunity. That is not an excuse. Bank robbers are motivated by economic opportunity as well, but we don't hesitate to arrest and prosecute them. Law breaking is law breaking, plain and simple.
- Excusing and coddling illegal immigration represents an enormous security risk to our nation. It is a matter of public record now that potential Islamic terrorist elements could be slipping into our country the very same way many illegal aliens do -- via our porous southern border with Mexico.
- Our political unwillingness to follow immigration law has translated into law enforcement's inability to interdict violent or damaging crimes committed by illegal aliens. There was a firestorm here in Hampton Roads not too long ago because an illegal alien caused a drunk driving accident that killed two teenage girls. This particular illegal alien had been arrested for driving while intoxicated well before the fatal crash; he should have been deported with prejudice at that time. Instead, the court gave him a mild slap on the hand in the form of time served and a pittance of a fine. He was released and warned not to drive. We all see how well that worked. This is a clear, practical example of how our failure to enforce immigration law is actually a dangerous practice that threatens the safety of the citizenry in palpable ways.
- Others have dealt with the deleterious economic impact of illegal immigration, but I view this as a lesser (though not unimportant) issue, so I shan't belabor that here. Here are couple good articles I found on how illegal immigration strains our medical system to the breaking point and saps billions of taxpayer dollars. Here's a third article from Business Week outlining how capitalism stripped of morality has led big business to fatten its bottom line while selling out American citizens by catering to the illegal alien population.
Given the gravity of the issue, I was utterly dismayed to hear Sen. John McCain (R, Arizona) defend his stance on immigration with one of the biggest, most INANE non sequiturs I have ever heard. There are 12 million illegal aliens in our country, he said, and that makes enforcing current illegal immigration law (i.e., DEPORTING them) untenable. The only alternative, according to McCain's logic, is this awful amnesty bill that he co-sponsored with the likes of Ted Kennedy.
My problems with Sen. McCain's rotgut reasoning are as follows:
- The notion that the number of illegals makes law enforcement impossible is ridiculous. There are between 250 and 300 million people in the U.S. If we can't enforce the laws on the books with 12 million, we might as well shrug our shoulders and give up on enforcing laws vis-a-vis the rest of the populace. After all, if we can't enforce laws that effect 12 million people, what makes us think we can do so with over 20 times that number? Of course, no reasonable person would think along these lines -- which makes it inexcusable for a U.S. Senator to do so.
- The logistical challenge and expense of deporting 12 million illegal aliens are often cited to assert that, in essence, amnesty is the only alternative. Given that 1) our lax attitude toward illegal immigration has the real possibility of resulting in a mushroom cloud over one or more of our major cities, 2) illegal immigration already costs the federal government billions of dollars each year, and 3) that amount is likely to double the moment we give amnesty to illegal aliens and will increase each year thereafter, I don't see how the Senator can reasonably maintain this position.
Folks, I don't mean to be hard-nosed here, and I don't wish to overlook the human element in all this either. Those who know me well know me as a man of compassion. The Business Week article I cited above makes reference to a family of illegal immigrants that has started its own business and worked its way into the middle class. I applaud their hard work and ingenuity, and I don't relish the thought of uprooting them and sending them packing. But the incontrovertible facts remain. They broke the law in order to get where they are. They made the choice to do that. They knowingly risked the consequences. We are culpable only insofar as we failed to enforce our laws. And so we face the painful prospect of forcing many such families out of the country.
The guilt we may feel at that notion should not stem from the enforcement of the law. It should stem rather from the libertine foolishness and cowardice that brought us this mess. And now the likes of Sen. McCain and President Bush would have us codify it and call it progress.
Not on your life, gentlemen.
Labels: illegal immigration, John McCain, John Warner, politics, President Bush
Monday, December 18, 2006
Friday, December 15, 2006
In defense of Cumberland (again)
Back when the Abu Ghraib scandal first broke in 2004, I was horrified to learn that the reservists who had engaged in the tawdry, sadistic behavior captured in those now infamous photos were part of a unit that is stationed near my beloved hometown, Cumberland, MD.
As the rest of the world learned this, they began to wonder, "What is it about Cumberland that would breed such perverse, twisted, abusive soldiers?" Then, reporters from the rest of the world flocked to Cumberland to investigate, convinced that the barbarism of a handful of reservists would be clearly reflected in the community at large.
I wrote a blog post in May of that year as a rebuttal to such ridiculous, ill-formed generalizations. It's an unfortunate truth of life that it only takes a few bad eggs to besmirch the reputation of many. As axiomatic as that is, I had hoped that intelligent journalists would find a way to paint a balanced picture of the city I was born and grew up in. I was wrong then, and the media continues to prove me wrong.
Last Sunday, 60 Minutes aired a report on Joe Darby, the reservist who accidentally uncovered the abuses at Abu Ghraib and blew the whistle on them. Joe had been a resident of the Cumberland area; when the time came for him to return home from Iraq, the Army told him it was simply too dangerous to go back to Cumberland. A security assessment conducted by the Army showed that resentment toward Darby for his role in exposing the scandal was so intense that it represented a genuine threat to his life.
Understand, friends, that I do not doubt the Army's conclusions about the danger posed to Darby and his family. Nor do I dispute Anderson Cooper's right to report it. But I strenuously object to the scurrilous manner in which Cooper and CBS suggested that the entire city of Cumberland was united in monolithic, snarling hatred for Joe Darby and his actions.
The report's inaccuracies:
The drumbeat of media bias rolls on. Cumberland is just one of its latest victims.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Back when the Abu Ghraib scandal first broke in 2004, I was horrified to learn that the reservists who had engaged in the tawdry, sadistic behavior captured in those now infamous photos were part of a unit that is stationed near my beloved hometown, Cumberland, MD.
As the rest of the world learned this, they began to wonder, "What is it about Cumberland that would breed such perverse, twisted, abusive soldiers?" Then, reporters from the rest of the world flocked to Cumberland to investigate, convinced that the barbarism of a handful of reservists would be clearly reflected in the community at large.
I wrote a blog post in May of that year as a rebuttal to such ridiculous, ill-formed generalizations. It's an unfortunate truth of life that it only takes a few bad eggs to besmirch the reputation of many. As axiomatic as that is, I had hoped that intelligent journalists would find a way to paint a balanced picture of the city I was born and grew up in. I was wrong then, and the media continues to prove me wrong.
Last Sunday, 60 Minutes aired a report on Joe Darby, the reservist who accidentally uncovered the abuses at Abu Ghraib and blew the whistle on them. Joe had been a resident of the Cumberland area; when the time came for him to return home from Iraq, the Army told him it was simply too dangerous to go back to Cumberland. A security assessment conducted by the Army showed that resentment toward Darby for his role in exposing the scandal was so intense that it represented a genuine threat to his life.
Understand, friends, that I do not doubt the Army's conclusions about the danger posed to Darby and his family. Nor do I dispute Anderson Cooper's right to report it. But I strenuously object to the scurrilous manner in which Cooper and CBS suggested that the entire city of Cumberland was united in monolithic, snarling hatred for Joe Darby and his actions.
The report's inaccuracies:
- Anderson Cooper referred to Cumberland as "a military town" in the report, which is a gross mischaracterization. I currently live in Virginia Beach, which is home to the Oceana Naval Air Station. Virginia Beach is part of the broader Tidewater area, where the Navy has a significant presence with at least two bases. Navy battle groups are stationed here, and their vessels are repaired in local shipyards. This, friends, is a military town. From what I've read, Cumberland is home to a small reserve unit of around 250 soldiers and a tiny VFW post. That is not a military town. Besides, I grew up there. I lived there for over twenty years. Not once did I ever hear someone refer to Cumberland as "a military town." But painting it that way may have served the intended rhetorical bent of Cooper's piece. Cumberland was neatly transformed into an ideological foil -- a fabricated example of "a military town" whose sympathies were with criminals rather than a courageous whistle-blower. This calumniates the very mindset of the armed forces, suggesting that Abu Ghraib was the natural outflow of our military's character and surrounding culture. Such assertions are not without precedent. Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh recently stated that the American military has never been more murderous or wantonly destructive as it has been in Iraq. I have no doubt that many in the mainstream media are sympathetic to his view. I wonder where Mr. Cooper stands? Or is his apparent hit-piece on Cumberland indicative of some agreement with Hersh's vitriolic and unfounded prejudice against the military?
- In any case, identifying Cumberland as a military town laid the groundwork for Cooper's report to move from the particular to the general in an unwarranted fashion by extrapolating the views of some Cumberland residents to all of them. At about five and a half minutes into the report, Cooper describes Cumberland as "a military town that felt Darby had betrayed his fellow soldiers." Cooper explicitly states here that the entire city was collectively and uniformly hostile to Darby. Not once during the 11-minute piece did Cooper interview a Cumberland resident who supported Darby or applauded his actions. This, I presume, was to suggest such people don't exist in Cumberland, but they incontrovertibly do. Mere logic indicates that this would be the case, but a simple visit to the editorial page of the Cumberland Times-News or a Cumberland message board confirms it. I cannot fathom why Mr. Cooper, a supposedly accomplished journalist, failed to do this.
The drumbeat of media bias rolls on. Cumberland is just one of its latest victims.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: Abu Ghraib, Cumberland, Joe Darby, media bias, politics
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Blog the vote!
2006 MonT-SteR Election Installment #2
2006 MonT-SteR Election Installment #2
2006 MonT-SteR Election Installment #1
Labels: politics
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Media bias questioned
A fellow blogger by the name of Chris Ridgeway visited my blog over the weekend, and made some thoughtful comments regarding my post that was critical of statements recently made by Hillary Clinton and the ensuing media coverage (or the lack thereof).
Chris says the following:
For this reason, Chris, I'm not willing to grant that what I implicitly stated in my post was mere assumption or, as you later state in your response, only a "theory." Yes, I intimated by my comments that the media leans to the left, but that's only because it's a fact that can be soundly demonstrated by research and statistics, as well as statements and admissions made by journalists themselves.
Chris continues:
Regarding the problem of "making brash assumptions about the political party of true Christianity," I can't help but think that you are lumping me together with people who believe God likes conservative Republicans better than liberal Democrats. That's a silly and offensive notion, and I don't ascribe to it. As a Christian who looks to the Bible as the chief and final authority not only on matters of faith and practice, but also ultimate truth, I will say that I find the political ideology of liberalism to be in conflict with Christianity far more often than it harmonizes with it. That's not to say that political conservatism always harmonizes with it either. Clearly, it does not.
I see some finger pointing in my direction in your final sentence. Are you trying to characterize my post on Hillary and media bias as whining? If so, I don't think that's accurate or fair. If your overarching point is that Evangelicals often complain with ungodly tone and frequency about media bias, you might have a good argument to make. As for your point on responding to media bias with pure motives and humility, I wholeheartedly concur. The late Ed Cole used to say that believers need to learn how to contend for Christianity without being contentious -- Paul calls it speaking the truth in love. I strive to do that, and I admit that I do not always succeed. If you or any of tMR's readers wish to offer me some constructive criticism in this area, I'm open to hearing it.
Thanks, Chris, for taking the time to visit my blog and share your thoughts. I hope you'll come back often.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
A fellow blogger by the name of Chris Ridgeway visited my blog over the weekend, and made some thoughtful comments regarding my post that was critical of statements recently made by Hillary Clinton and the ensuing media coverage (or the lack thereof).
Chris says the following:
[As] a Christian pastor-in-training (insert evangelical buzzwords for credibility here), I've got a question. I accept your facts: Jerry Fallwell speaks, and media laughs. Hillary Clinton invokes Jesus, and maybe there isn't a backlash.Obviously, it would be silly for me to assert that every single member of the American media is sympathetic to liberal ideology and causes; clearly, that's not the case. It's equally untenable for me to say that all members of the media are in political lockstep with Sen. Clinton. However, research on the media covering the past several decades indicates that 1) the vast majority of the media is sympathetic to political liberalism, 2) by extension, they are unsympathetic (or hostile) to competing ideologies or political perspectives, viz. traditional, conservative, or even Christian thought, and 3) the majority leftist orientation of the media frequently colors the reporting they do.
I'm just not sure I am with your assumptions: which unexplicitly but generally seem to be 1) the media is liberal like Hillary Clinton would be considered liberal 2) the media gives favorable coverage to liberals because they belong to the same club.
For this reason, Chris, I'm not willing to grant that what I implicitly stated in my post was mere assumption or, as you later state in your response, only a "theory." Yes, I intimated by my comments that the media leans to the left, but that's only because it's a fact that can be soundly demonstrated by research and statistics, as well as statements and admissions made by journalists themselves.
Chris continues:
"[Your view of the media is] the prevaling oppressed evangelical theory. But pardon me [for] taking a quick try at neutral bias: aren't there any other factors that could affect media coverage?These are good questions. Let me try to tackle them one at a time:
What differences in content exist between Jerry Fallwell's (or pick another) last religious proclaimation, and Hillary's?
How about differences in presentation and tone?
How about differences in source credibility in a pluralistic society?
- What differences in content exist between Jerry Fallwell's (or pick another) last religious proclaimation, and Hillary's?
If I understand your point here, I think it is well taken with respect to Rev. Falwell and Pat Robertson -- they tend toward the open-mouth-insert-foot syndrome, and their public statements are sometimes lacking in civility or grace. But in a way, that very fact also serves to bolster the original point I was making. Hillary flamed those in favor of immigration reform as "contrary to the spirit of the Scriptures" and favoring laws that would ultimately criminalize Christ Himself. The implication is that if one favors getting tough on the illegal immigration problem we have in this country, then he or she is motivated by the same unwholesome ideals and and prejudices that ultimately incarcerated Jesus Christ. How else is one to take such comments? In terms of content or meaning, I don't see how this differs significantly from many of the controversial things that Falwell or Robertson say (not counting calls for assassination of foreign leaders, of course). That's why I felt the need to highlight the hypocrisy inherent in the pass the media gave to Hillary when she made these statements. If any Christian minister of national prominence called a press conference and accused anyone who supports laws restricting abortion protesters of being contrary to the spirit of the Scriptures and tantamount to criminalizing Christ Himself, how do you think the media would react? Favorably? How much would the separation of church and state get mentioned in the ensuing coverage? Did we hear anything like that vis-a-vis Hillary's comments? - How about differences in presentation and tone?
For the most part, I think I answered this above. - How about differences in source credibility in a pluralistic society?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this question, but I'll do my best to respond. I assume that you intend "source" to refer to whoever is making public comments -- in this case, Hillary Clinton and certain Christian ministers of national prominence. Your reference to pluralism seems to imply that, in a pluralistic society, higher levels of credibility will by default be conferred upon certain individuals based upon prevailing social proclivities. So, as I understand it, your question appears to raise the following issues: 1) how favorably or unfavorably Christian ministers are typically viewed through the pluralistic lens of society at large, 2) by extension, how specific Christian ministers (i.e., the Falwells, Robertsons, and Dobsons of the world) are typically viewed by our pluralistic society, and 3) whether or not Christians should expect anything different. If I've understood your question correctly, answering it is a bit of a sticky wicket. One could write pages in response! In a nutshell, my thoughts are as follows:- Disciples of Christ are forewarned in the Scriptures that we will typically experience persecution and rejection from the world:
"If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you." (John 15:18-19)
So, as you seem to intimate by your question, it is no surprise that a pluralistic world would be predisposed to regard orthodox Christianity and its proponents with disdain. According to the Scriptures, that's a fact of life for a believer. However...
Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you. (1 John 3:13) - The Scriptures also teach that the world is culpable before God for this same predisposition:
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. (John 1:10-11)
Although we are told to expect that the world will persecute the Church just as it persecuted Jesus, clearly it is something that ought not happen. So, while a pluralistic society may naturally tend toward actively discrediting Christians, the Scriptures do not sanction such a phenomenon. Quite the opposite, in fact.
This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. (John 3:19)
He who receives [My followers] receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. (Matthew 10:40) - It seems, therefore, that we are caught on the horns of a dilemma. Messengers of the Gospel ought to be received and respected by society at large, but we are taught that, for the most part, we will not be. How do we respond?
- Forgiveness and forbearance are prescribed, of course. I think the contention implicit in your question is that many Christians (particularly those with large public ministries) do not respond appropriately -- that the tone they tend to strike merely compounds the prevenient intolerance the world has for Christianity, thereby opening them even more to things like ill treatment in the media. I have to admit that in many instances, your point certainly applies.
- Nevertheless, the fact still remains that Hillary used religious rhetoric that was strident in its own right. The very point your question raises ought to apply to her comments as well. If the media were consistent, she too would have been held up to scorn and public ridicule for appealing to Christianity in such a manner to justify her political stance. That didn't happen, leading me to conclude that the media has a template for what Christians ought to believe, or that they are okay with Christianity only as long as its practical outworking harmonizes with their own worldview. This constitutes clear and willful bias, and I think it's both reasonable and fair to call attention to it -- especially when said media purports to be unbiased and impartial in its reporting.
- Disciples of Christ are forewarned in the Scriptures that we will typically experience persecution and rejection from the world:
I guess my point is this: as a devoted Christ follower - I'm willing to assume that there is some biased reporting out there. But sometimes I can't help but feeling that we can't get off the "we're" oppressed block, and possibly forget that we're making brash assumptions about the political party of true Christianity, the words of a US Senator vs. a TV preacher, the purity of our own motives when being frustrated on criticism, and the way humility typically wins over whining.As for the "we're Evangelicals and we're oppressed" sentiment, modern circumstances often make it easy to lose sight of the fact that we serve a victorious Christ who has overcome the world. But I can honestly say that I wasn't motivated by such feelings when I criticized the media's handling of Sen. Clinton. My purpose was to highlight obvious duplicity and bias which belies the external veneer of impartiality that the media attempts to maintain. Why? Because I think biased reporting is a harmful and ultimately deceitful practice, and the media should put a stop to it. Should I let it get to me? Probably not as much as I do. But pointing it out is truth telling in my book, and I see nothing wrong with that.
Regarding the problem of "making brash assumptions about the political party of true Christianity," I can't help but think that you are lumping me together with people who believe God likes conservative Republicans better than liberal Democrats. That's a silly and offensive notion, and I don't ascribe to it. As a Christian who looks to the Bible as the chief and final authority not only on matters of faith and practice, but also ultimate truth, I will say that I find the political ideology of liberalism to be in conflict with Christianity far more often than it harmonizes with it. That's not to say that political conservatism always harmonizes with it either. Clearly, it does not.
I see some finger pointing in my direction in your final sentence. Are you trying to characterize my post on Hillary and media bias as whining? If so, I don't think that's accurate or fair. If your overarching point is that Evangelicals often complain with ungodly tone and frequency about media bias, you might have a good argument to make. As for your point on responding to media bias with pure motives and humility, I wholeheartedly concur. The late Ed Cole used to say that believers need to learn how to contend for Christianity without being contentious -- Paul calls it speaking the truth in love. I strive to do that, and I admit that I do not always succeed. If you or any of tMR's readers wish to offer me some constructive criticism in this area, I'm open to hearing it.
Thanks, Chris, for taking the time to visit my blog and share your thoughts. I hope you'll come back often.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: Christianity, media bias, politics
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Thou hypocrite
Any time Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or James Dobson comment on politics from a religious perspective, there's nothing but hooting and catcalls in the media for the following week.
So what happens when certain left-leaning politicians mix religion and politics?
You can hear the crickets chirping.
Case in point example: Hillary Clinton decrying newly proposed legislation that would crack down on illegal immigration. She says it's not in keeping with her understanding of the spirit of the Scriptures. Furthermore, she argues, it would criminalize the likes of the good Samaritan and ultimately Jesus Himself. This, friends, is not harmless religious philosophizing. It's vicious rhetoric that is designed to pigeonhole people who actually want to enforce our nation's laws vis-a-vis immigration as racist, anti-compassion, anti-tolerance, and ultimately anti-Christ.
Note the complete and utter absence of a media firestorm. This highlights the absolute hypocrisy of many on the left. God-talk is okay as long as the invocation is in support of a libertine stance on contemporary issues. But it's only the right that illegitimately hijacks Jesus as a political football for their closed-minded ideals.
Right.
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Any time Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or James Dobson comment on politics from a religious perspective, there's nothing but hooting and catcalls in the media for the following week.
So what happens when certain left-leaning politicians mix religion and politics?
You can hear the crickets chirping.
Case in point example: Hillary Clinton decrying newly proposed legislation that would crack down on illegal immigration. She says it's not in keeping with her understanding of the spirit of the Scriptures. Furthermore, she argues, it would criminalize the likes of the good Samaritan and ultimately Jesus Himself. This, friends, is not harmless religious philosophizing. It's vicious rhetoric that is designed to pigeonhole people who actually want to enforce our nation's laws vis-a-vis immigration as racist, anti-compassion, anti-tolerance, and ultimately anti-Christ.
Note the complete and utter absence of a media firestorm. This highlights the absolute hypocrisy of many on the left. God-talk is okay as long as the invocation is in support of a libertine stance on contemporary issues. But it's only the right that illegitimately hijacks Jesus as a political football for their closed-minded ideals.
Right.
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: media bias, politics
Saturday, January 28, 2006