Things I Don't Need To Hear

So one night this week, Mrs. D.O.T.S. had drifted off to sleep and I was still awake and reading. As usual, the TV was tuned to Fox News Channel but I wasn't really listening. Suddenly I was jolted by the sound of a young girl screaming for help.

I looked at the TV to find Greta Van Susteren playing the audio tape of a call to 911. The caption said it was a 9-year-old girl whose mother had just been stabbed by her father. The mother was bleeding, the deranged father was stalking around with a sword, and the little girl was calling for help while trying to care for a younger brother.

I was fascinated by this for a second. It was a kind of primitive reaction that I think is programmed into the males of most every species: child in danger - protect! But of course it was TV; there was nothing I could do. Once this thought registered, I started to feel uncomfortable. This little girl's life was being destroyed, and Fox News was replaying her experience for... what? Entertainment value? I, for one, did not feel entertained.

Let me be clear: this wasn't just a quick clip. It went on for two or three minutes as the 911 operator tried to get information and help the girl calm down. I finally decided I didn't want to hear anymore and turned it off.

Of course it is the mission of Fox News to report the news. Reporting the facts is one thing; replaying the worst moments of this girl's life for the entire nation to share isn't news. It is pure titillation and emotional manipulation. But the media isn't alone. They do these things because the public responds. We're all at fault.

The mother died and the father was arrested. Hopefully justice will be done and he won't be able to hurt anyone else. He's already done quite enough; two young children have lost their mother and their father in the worst possible way. The experience will haunt them for life. It's haunting me and I wasn't even there.

One good thing did come from the story: as I drifted off to sleep that night, I prayed for that little girl and her brother. I'm sure many other people did the same. Sadly, it was all we could do.

So Grandma Isn't Perfect

Obama's speech about race is drawing rather vicious attacks from Ann Coulter and other conservatives. Before I go on, let me be clear: I disagree with Barack Obama on almost every political issue. I do not want him to be president. I will never vote for him unless he makes some truly dramatic philosophical changes. I think many of his followers are a little wacky.

This, however, does not mean I automatically disagree with every word Obama says simply because he is the one saying it. The truth is the truth, even when it comes from the mouth of someone who is not part of my Tribe and with whom I have many other disagreements.

Speaking of Jeremiah Wright, his stridently opinionated pastor, Obama said this:

As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Coulter uses this to accuse Obama of "throwing Grandma under the bus." Does this really make sense? I think of my own late grandfather. I heard him say things about black people that I thought, even as a child, didn't sound right. I've now learned they were absolutely wrong. Yet I loved him dearly. I know he wasn't perfect, and I don't respect him any less because of it. I think I understand how he came to have such attitudes. It was hard to think otherwise during the formative years of his life. If he were alive today, I would love him even as I disagreed with him.

I suspect most people can relate to this. We all have people in our lives that are close to us, but with whom we have significant differences. We find ways to get past the differences so we can enjoy the positive aspects of these relationships. So I have no problem believing that Obama loved his grandma at the same time he cringed at her remarks - and I don't expect him to disown her.

This is not, of course, the view of most people on the political right. To them, Obama is from the other tribe. He is a threat. He is the enemy, and must therefore be destroyed, whatever it takes. As noted above, I have no political sympathy for Obama, but this Grandma angle is a tactic I choose not to use. A few others agree. Here's Mark Shea:

Sorry, but I don't see that as "throwing grandma under the bus". I see it as pretty much resonating with my own experience of living in community with people who have real faults and sins on their heads. There are members of my family who were quite as unabashed in their racism as Obama's pastor or grandmother. There are people I love and care deeply about who hold opinions I find repellent or kooky. Hell, in my parish there are people with views on everything from Jews to 9/11 conspiracy theories I think are nutty. I've never believed people are binary. I think it's quite possible for the most saintly person to have some thoroughly disgusting streak of wickedness.

Steven Taylor at Poliblog:

To me, this was an intensely honest portion of the speech and one of the best arguments for explaining how Obama could tolerate things that Wright has said. I find the assertions noted above that this was throwing grandma “under the bus” to be a combination of disingenuous and ignorant.

First, this was not sacrificing his Grandmother for some political gain. For crying out loud, in this passage, the man is proclaiming his love for his grandmother, and noting how she is part of him. That is hardly throwing her under the bus–this is biography.

Second, what he is clearly saying is that people we love sometimes say things that we disagree with–even sometimes saying things that we find repugnant–and yet we still love them. What is so hard to understand about that? Now, I will grant that part of the reason I find this to be an honest and easily understandable portion of the speech is that I directly identified with it, as I have had older members of my family say things about race that have made me utterly cringe. Yet, oddly enough, I continued to love them. My guess is that most people have had this experience. As such, there is not bus-throwing here, but rather a simple reflection of a common occurrence in most of our lives.

The conservatives who attack Obama for these things are not helping their cause. They are, instead, allowing ideology to overcome common decency. I prefer the approach of Peggy Noonan, who reviewed Obama's speech and found it "strong, thoughtful and important."

Today is Good Friday, when we recall the suffering and death of One who loved us all, despite our many faults. It's a good time to remember the example Christ gave us. We can disagree with ideas without hating the one who holds them. Personally I have great difficulty with this, but I'm working on it.

Obama's Preacher

This week Barack Obama denounced a number of "inflammatory" statements made by his longtime pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I think it is a bit surprising that so many people are so upset by brief snippets of very long sermons. It would be nice to see them in full context before jumping to conclusions.

However, I will concede that Rev. Wright appears to have some far-left political views. Why, exactly, does this surprise anyone? Pulpits across America are regularly occupied by liberals of every color. It is more common in some denominations than others, but the things Rev. Wright said are not that unusual in certain quarters. He is just more forceful and colorful than most in expressing what he thinks.

It is also not news that Rev. Wright and Sen. Obama are close associates. Anyone who was paying attention to the presidential campaign knew all about Rev. Wright and his rhetoric over a year ago. Why is it suddenly a big deal? Perhaps because the media wishes it to be so?

I'm also not sure which of the things he says are so wrong. Rev. Wright thinks that black people still lack equality in America. He mentions the KKK and wants black Americans to embrace their African heritage. From this some people conclude he must be a kind of reverse racist. Yet this doesn't fit with the many self-help initiative his church has sponsored. Wright often, according to reports, exalts his black congregation to stand on its own feet and stop waiting for handouts. These are all good things. Furthermore, Wright's church is part of the largely white United Church of Christ denomination. None of this is consistent with the racist attitudes some think they see in him.

We also saw clips this week of Rev. Wright talking about U.S. military actions he thought to be atrocious, like the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Whether you agree with him or not, this is not exactly a fringe view. There are plenty of people from all backgrounds who think Truman should not have used nuclear weapons. Among these are many preachers, teachers, professors, popes, politicians, diplomats and war heroes.

The one thing that probably resonates the most is the clip of Wright saying "G-- D--- America." This is from a sermon he preached right after 9-11, the theme of which seems to have been that we in America brought the attacks on ourselves. Again, this is not an unusual view. Last year on the sixth anniversary of 9-11 I posted this speech and video by Rev. John Corapi suggesting much the same thing, albeit for different reasons. Many, many pastors made similar comments about God using the terrorists to send a message to America. Wright's crime seems to be that he said it a little louder.

If you're wondering whether I have gone off the deep end here, calm down. I will never vote for Obama as long as he favors legal abortion and infanticide. There are plenty of reasons to hope he never becomes president. What I'm saying is that the fact he has a fiery, opinionated pastor is not one of those reasons. I feel sure that every politician in both parties has some close associates who have said outrageous things. What counts is what the person who wants our vote thinks, and what he intends to do if elected.

Frankly, I'm glad that Obama at least has a pastor and professes some semblance of Christian belief. It gives us hope that he will someday see the error of his ways. A crazy pastor is better than no pastor at all.

RIP William F. Buckley

I think it was 1982 when I first read National Review. I was a freshman in college and it caught my eye in the library one day. One reading and I was hooked, mainly due to the incisive prose and brilliant reasoning of William F. Buckley, Jr. I proceeded to read several of his books and even his spy novels. He was a major intellectual influence on me. While I've since moved past him on some issues, I continued to admire and respect him.

Buckley passed away last night. He was found where every writer is happiest - at his desk, probably working on another column. After a lifetime of verbal battle, it's fitting that Buckley died in combat, weapon still in hand. May God grant him eternal rest and peace.

Rod Dreher has a good eulogy.

Honeymoon Over For McCain

When John McCain ran for president in 2000 his "Straight Talk Express" bus came to be considered home territory for members of the media. This careful cultivation of various reporters has paid excellent dividends for the Senator; he's always enjoyed good press coverage. This seems to be ending now that he is on the verge of getting the GOP nomination.

The New York Times began the assault this week with a story containing vague, anonymous allegations of a relationship between McCain and a much younger female lobbyist. McCain quickly denied the charges. Many of the same conservatives who were attacking McCain just a few weeks ago leaped to his defense.

I have no problem believing that the New York Times is out to get Senator McCain. Nothing personal, of course; they would do the same to any other Republican. I think the campaign was surprised because they thought the had the media on their side, or at least neutralized. That notion should now be out of their minds. Every word McCain ever said is going to be scrutinized in every possible way between now and November. He's in the big leagues now.

While this particular story appears to be groundless, I think it's resonating because the charges are consistent with McCain's past. Recall that he divorced his first wife - the one who stood by him while he was a POW and almost died while he was gone - in order to marry his much younger current wife, who was herself one of a long line of extramarital affairs. This is well-known and McCain himself has admitted it. So when someone says he seems to be getting a little too close to an attractive young woman, people don't immediately dismiss the possibility.

Is it wrong to bring up these facts? I don't think so. McCain and his supporters want to talk about the honorable things he did in his younger days as reason that he should now be president. That's fine, but if he did dishonorable things back then, those events are relevant as well. He can't have it both ways. Call me old-fashioned, but I think the way a man treats his wife and family says a lot about his character - and his character is one of the things we as voters need to consider.

Likewise, when you build a public image out of cleaning up Washington and taking the money out of politics, then surround yourself with lobbyists and ex-lobbyists, it should be no surprise when people say there is something wrong with the picture.

Now that the dam is broken, the next phase begins. McCain is going to get the full treatment from the media. To some degree this is helpful; he's already using it as a fundraising tool. I still think it won't matter, though. Get ready for President Obama.

Tired of Fox News

Apparently this is the week for TV anchor people to make idiots of themselves. First we had ESPN's Dana Jacobson with her drunken tirade against Notre Dame. Now John Gibson of Fox News is dancing on Heath Ledger's grave. Check this out. (via Mark Shea)

I don't have any particular affinity for Heath Ledger. I didn't see Brokeback Mountain, but I liked him in The Patriot and A Knight's Tale. Whatever kind of person he was, he's dead now and his family and friends are grieving. Making his death the butt of jokes is a low-class thing to do. I expect such things from shock jocks, not the author of The War on Christmas who is a popular figure on the "conservative" news network. At least Jacobson had the excuse of being drunk; Gibson was sober when he said these things, and probably even wrote the lines in advance.

I used to be quite a Fox News junkie. Over the last year I've grown tired of their fixation on celebrity gossip and grisly crime stories. The political coverage is still good but I've lost interest in that, too. Guys like Gibson and Sean Hannity now strike me as little more than blowhard shills for the Rubber Hose Right. I don't miss them at all.

Maybe I should start a support group for ex-Fox News addicts. Anyone else out there feel the same?

Boorish Anchorwoman Begs For Lightning

This sounds like a delightful woman. I'd like to meet her someday.

[from AFA] ESPN and its parent company, ABC, have refused to take any action against ESPN anchorwoman Dana Jacobson for her hateful, slurring remarks against Jesus, saying "F-- -- Jesus."

On January 11, Jacobson was speaking at a celebrity roast in Atlantic City, N.J., when she unleashed a profane tirade, saying, "F--- Notre Dame," "F--- Touchdown Jesus" and finally "F--- Jesus."

"Touchdown Jesus" is the popular moniker for a statue of Jesus raising his arms, located on the Notre Dame campus.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue spoke with ESPN about the attack and received an e-mail from Jacobson which basically treated the incident as a non-event. The statement said, in part, "I respect all religions and did not mean anything derogatory by my poorly chosen words."

Jacobson's comments were at a public event where she was representing ESPN.

The fact that neither ESPN nor ABC has taken any action against Jacobson indicates they have a bias against Christians. Donohue said that Jacobson should be fired.

This anti-Christian bias of the networks is becoming commonplace. Actress Kathy Griffin used her appearance on the Emmy Awards program to tell Jesus to "suck it," responding to athletes who thank Jesus when they achieve certain levels. No action was taken against Griffin.

Bill Donoghue's latest post reports that ESPN has suspended Jacobson for a week, but he appears to have initially thought her insult was directed only at Notre Dame - not Jesus Himself. Apparently there is a video of the event that ESPN refuses to release. Donoghue wants the video made public so we can all know exactly what was said. Newsbusters has more details. Here is what ESPN has to say.

As usual, Notre Dame responded with class.

Notre Dame spokesman Dennis Brown said, "While we in no way condone Ms. Jacobson's comments, we're aware of the circumstances in which they occurred, and in the interest of forgiveness, trust that she and ESPN will address the matter in an appropriate way."

I am not in the least surprised that an ESPN anchor would say such things. This is the network that glorifies the vile exploits of athletically-talented gangsters who in a more civilized society would be placed behind bars where they cannot serve as objects of adulation for impressionable teenagers. That we live in such a society is only partially the fault of ESPN, of course. TV networks air the things they think we want to see. Ms. Jacobson is simply a reflection of our neo-pagan culture. Nonetheless, there is no reason for Christians to patronize a network whose stars feel free to fling curses at our God and institutions like Notre Dame that are dedicated to His service. There are better things to do with our time anyway.

Ms. Jacobson is also a coward. If she really wanted to stir up trouble she would have directed her insults at Mohammad. She did not - and if she had, ESPN would not need to be pressured into taking action. Jacobson would have been fired within microseconds and told to leave the building quickly before the car bombs could get there. This double standard says all we need to know.

UPDATE: David Kuo - and apparently most of his readers - think Christians are just whining about this incident. Why are these people even reading a site called "beliefnet?"

Also, I forgot to mention that ESPN is owned by Disney. I'm sure Uncle Walt would be proud.

UPDATE 2: Bill Donohue now says after further discussions with ESPN he now feels the network has taken appropriate action, and he considers the matter closed. Sister Mary Martha has a few words.

Obscenity at Barnes & Noble

So this weekend I went shopping at the new Barnes & Noble in my area. Mrs. D.O.T.S. and I were pleased when it opened because there were no other bookstores nearby.

At the front of the store near the checkout counters is a table featuring 2008 box calendars, the kind where you tear off a page each day. There are all manner of such calendars: dogs, cats, cartoons, happy thoughts, etc. I took a picture of it for you. Which one grabs your attention? Keep in mind this is only a few steps away from the children's section of the store.

I dare say most eyes will be drawn straight to the bright red "Sex Every Day In Every Way 2008 Daily Calendar." (Click here for a better look on the B&N web site.) This is just what America needs because, as you know, we just don't think about sex often enough in this country. Having such a daily reminder will be good for everyone.

If people want to buy this thing, so be it, but is it really a good idea to display them out in the open, alongside products that will draw the eyes of small children? There are more than words, too. The box has illustrations that graphically depict people engaged in a variety of (ahem...) acrobatic maneuvers. I don't want to show them on my blog, but you can click here for a small sample.

On the same table was another calendar, shown in the second photo. If you can't read it, the headline reads "The Dictionary of Corporate B------t." This is slightly less offensive than the sex calendar but still not appropriate for public view, in my opinion. Movies that use this word get a PG-13 rating, so parents at least know what to expect. Barnes & Noble doesn't give you the courtesy of a warning.

I took one of the sex calendars to a female store employee and asked her if she thought it was appropriate to display where children would almost certainly see them. She took one look and called the manager.

He offered no regrets whatsoever. All he could say was "People have different tastes" and he would pass on my concern to their corporate office. I again asked, what kind of person could even remotely think that it is appropriate to let children see this product? He would not answer the question. So I wished him a Merry Christmas and left without buying anything.

If B&N is like most large retailers, the store manager is given detailed directions from above on how products are to be displayed. He probably doesn't have authority to move them. This means B&N has made a corporate decision that it doesn't care if young children are exposed to sexually explicit images. Their first priority is to make money however they can. That is their right, of course. It is also my right to not shop at their store. I urge everyone else to do likewise.

One more indication of the priorities at Barnes & Noble: there is a large display of Phillip Pullman's atheism-promoting Golden Compass line of children's books and related merchandise. If they can't corrupt your kids one way, they'll find another way to get the job done. Their persistence is admirable.

You can express your concern to B&N management by using the contact form at the bottom of this page.

UPDATE: Moms go after CVS; Is Barnes & Noble Next?

Potemkin Press Conference

I just saw Shep Smith report this story on Fox News this evening, and I see Texas Fred and MikeVotes are already all over it. More publicity will follow. It's too good to ignore.

Earlier this week FEMA held a press conference about its response to the California fires. For some reason they did it on short notice and no actual reporters were present. FEMA hacks therefore populated the briefing room with their own staffers posing as reporters. To no great surprise, they lobbed a variety of softball questions at Vice Admiral Harvey E. Johnson, the agency's deputy director.

FEMA has now apologized and the White House says it knew nothing about it beforehand and did not condome FEMA's deception. That's probably true; only FEMA could do something so boneheaded. Did they actually think the real news media wouldn't wonder who all those newcomers were?

This will probably blow up into a big deal and give FEMA yet another black eye. For all of Bill Clinton's faults, his man James Lee Witt kept FEMA running like clockwork. I don't get why Bush can't do likewise.

Rise of the Wiggers

Bill Cosby, who in recent years is making it his mission to preach self-responsibility to black Americans, has a new book called Come On, People. On Sunday he appeared on Meet The Press along with his co-author, Dr. Alvin Poussaint of Harvard Medical School. They seem to have their work cut out for them.

MR. RUSSERT: One of the things that you did in “Come On, People” were—was to compile statistics, very hard-headed numbers.

DR. POUSSAINT: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: And they are numbing when you read through them. You mentioned one. One out of three of homeless people are black. Blacks make up 12 percent of our population. And here’s a some—a few more that you cite which I think really does help us dramatize how critical this discussion is. And let’s read them through here.

“Homicide is the number one cause of death for black men between 15 and 29 years of age and has been for decades.

“Of the roughly 16,000 homicides in this country each year, more than half are committed by black men. A black man is seven times more likely to commit a murder than a white man, and six times more likely to be murdered.

“Ninety-four percent of all black people who are murdered are murdered by other black people.

“Although black people make up” “12 percent of the general population,” “make up nearly 44 percent of the prison population.

“At any given time, as many as one in four of all” black men, “young black men are in the criminal justice system—in prison or jail, on probation or on parole.”

Those are numbing numbers. They truly are. What can we do? [Full transcript]

What the transcript doesn't show is that when Russert said "What can we do?" there was a long, awkward pause before Cosby began to answer. My impression was that he knows full well that there are no good solutions. Two and maybe three generations are lost forever. It's very sad. Cosby has a few specific public policy ideas, which may help some, but what really needs to happen is a moral awakening in the black communities. There is only so much that outsiders can do to help.

The broader point I wish to make is that I fear the trends we see among young blacks are finding their way to white youth, through the conduit of rap music. More from the MTP interview:

In fact, the audience for gangsta rap is made up predominantly of white youth, who get a vicarious thrill from participating in a black thug fantasy, including the degradation of women. Black youth, as well as some misguided adults, have defended the use of the N-word, suggesting they are somehow making it a positive term...

If you’re going to use those words and the white male is buying the CD, then they’re buying into those words, and those words are being used on their women. Hint, hint. Domestic violence in the police department. Now they also share in the N-word. And it’s OK to say it, according to them, because it’s on the record...

Remember, too, that for a while that white kids who were into some of this rap and so on started calling themselves “wiggers”? ...

... the young, young girls will be dancing to words that degrade women and degrade them and they’re dancing to it. It shows you how much values have been corrupted, you know, by some of the media influences, and the young people can’t distinguish between what’s right and wrong. It’s like the, the bad stuff has become normal, and then they even see it as part of their culture instead of something that’s abhorrent and, and, and, and hurtful to their, to their lives and to their community.

Now, I know plenty of white parents who either don't mind or don't know that their kids listen to the vile lyrics of gangsta rap. I suppose it is possible, in a family situation that is otherwise healthy and stable, that this kind of music won't cause any harm. On the other hand, it's insane to suggest that music has no effect on us at all.

Music is processed by our brains differently from spoken or written words. It makes us feel good, and we retain information better when we acquire it musically. Kids who would never read poetry in English class love to hear the same words set to music. Properly used, this can be a good thing. Use it to spread misogynistic, violent, and hedonistic thoughts, and it should surprise no one if we end up with misogynistic, violent, and hedonistic youth.

White Americans need to hope and pray that people like Cosby and Poussaint are successful in their mission - not only because blacks are fellow citizens and humans, but because whites are vulnerable to the same disorders. The trends you see in black youth today will overtake white youth. When white kids begin calling themselves "wiggers," you know it's already starting. The violence and chaos that prevail in inner cities are spreading to white suburbs.

Think I'm wrong? I hope I am. Let's talk again in twenty years.


UPDATE 10/16/07: Mark Gordon has a post about the Cosby book. Otherwise not much reaction in the blogs I read.

So Much For Growing Up

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Hannity & Dobson

Below is video from Dr. James Dobson's appearance on Hannity & Colmes last night. I am increasingly puzzled why anyone thinks Sean Hannity has any principles. He seems to regard "conservative" as more of a tribal identity than anything else. As a result, he will do anything to help his tribe hold on to the White House in 2008. What happens afterward is not his concern.

Along comes Dr. Dobson, calmly telling Hannity that there are lines we can't cross, principles we can't compromise, moral laws we cannot break, regardless of the Earthly consequences. Dobson might just as well be speaking Chinese, as far as Hannity is concerned. Rudy Giuliani cleaned up Times Square, Sean saw it for himself, so he will be a great president! He's supported abortion all his life, donated money to Planned Parenthood, supported gay marriage and worn a dress in public - but we can trust Rudy to appoint conservative judges! Anyway Hillary would be even worse!

Watch it for yourself. I think Hannity has jumped the shark.

The Thinking Look

I sincerely hope Barack Obama is not our next president. Peggy Noonan probably feels the same way, but she does find one appealing quality in him. From her column today:

Barack Obama has a great thinking look. I mean the look he gets on his face when he's thinking, not the look he presents in debate, where they all control their faces knowing they may be in the reaction shot and fearing they'll look shrewd and clever, as opposed to open and strong. I mean the look he gets in an interview or conversation when he's listening and not conscious of his expression. It's a very present look. He seems more in the moment than handling the moment. I've noticed this the past few months, since he entered the national stage. I wonder if I'm watching him more closely than his fellow Democrats are.

Mr. Obama often seems to be thinking when he speaks, too, and this comes somehow as a relief, in comparison, say, to Hillary Clinton and President Bush, both of whom often seem to be trying to remember the answer they'd agreed upon with staff. What's the phrase we use about education? Hit Search Function. Hit Open. Right-click. "Equity in education is essential, Tim . . ."

You get the impression Mr. Obama trusts himself to think, as if something good might happen if he does. What a concept. Anyway, I've started to lean forward a little when he talks.

READ THE REST

Bill Clinton Makes Sense

Now there is a headline I never expected to type. Still, I must give credit where credit is due. On the matter of torture, or "enhanced interrogation techniques," or whatever you wish to call it, Bill sounded remarkably intelligent and thoughtful when he appeared on Meet The Press last Sunday.

The subject came up because a few days earlier Tim Russert had trapped Hillary Clinton in a presidential debate by quoting what Bill had said about torture in the past [Video here]. He had said that the U.S. should normally not use torture but there should be provision for the president or other officials to grant exceptions in extreme situations - the "ticking bomb" scenario.

Bill has since changed his mind. Now he doesn't think there should be any exceptions in the law. Here's his latest:

... I think America’s policy should be to oppose torture, to honor the Geneva Conventions for several reasons. One is, it’s almost always counterproductive. If you beat somebody up, they’ll tell you what they want to hear. Two is, it, it really hurts us in the rest of the world and helps to recruit other terrorists. And thirdly, it makes our own people vulnerable to torture.

You know, there’s a one in a million chance that you might be alone somewhere, and you’re Jack Bauer on “24.” That’s the Jack Bauer example, right? It happens every season with Jack Bauer, but to—in the real world it doesn’t happen very much. If you have a policy which legitimizes this, it’s a slippery slope and you get in the kind of trouble we’ve been in here with Abu Ghraib, with Guantanamo, with lots of other examples.

And I’m not even sure what I said is right now. I think what happens is the honest truth is that Tim Russert, Bill Clinton, people filming this show, if we were the Jack Bauer person and it was six hours to the bomb or whatever, you don’t know what you would do, and you have to—but I think what our policy ought to be is to be uncompromisingly opposed to terror—I mean to torture, and that if you’re the Jack Bauer person, you’ll do whatever you do and you should be prepared to take the consequences. And I think the consequences will be imposed based on what turns out to be the truth. I think there are a lot of areas in life where you don’t. But I, I loved how she handled this whole thing. I guess you want to show the rest now.

MR. RUSSERT: But, but not [have a] formal exception.

MR. CLINTON: Yeah, I don’t think you should now. The more I think about it, and the more I have seen that, if you have any kind of formal exception, people just drive a truck through it, and they’ll say “Well, I thought it was covered by the exception.” I think, I think it’s better not to have one. And if you happen to be the actor in that moment which, as far as I know, has not occurred in my experience or President Bush’s experience since we’ve been really dealing with this terror, but I—you actually had the Jack Bauer moment, we call it, I think you should be prepared to live with the consequences. And yet, ironically, if you look at the show, every time they get the president to approve something, the president gets in trouble, the country gets in trouble. And when Bauer goes out there on his own and is prepared to live with the consequences, it always seems to work better. [Full transcript]

It is entirely possible Bill will change his mind again, and there is no guarantee his wife will think this way if she becomes president. Nevertheless, for now he has a far more reasonable and realistic torture policy than any candidate of either party has taken, other than Ron Paul.

What Clinton says about exceptions is absolutely true: give them an inch and they'll take a mile. That universal principle is the reason we have a Constitution that is not easily changed. President Bush, on the other hand, sought to grant blanket immunity for those who torture prisoners, all the while denying that they do any such thing - a claim we cannot verify since he steadfastly refuses to define what he means by "torture."

With such power in hand, it should be no surprise that some agents of the government will abuse it. Mr. Bush says we should just trust him, similar to the way we trusted him about Iraq having nuclear and chemical weapons. Sorry, sir. I won't be fooled twice. On this one, your predecessor is a lot closer to the right. You might want to listen to him.

Related posts:
Tortured Logic
Colin Powell on Guantanamo
Petraeus on Battlefield Ethics
Adventures in Fog
Defining Torture

Kid Detention

As usual, the satire of Andy Borowitz hits disturbingly close to the mark.

Fresh on the heels of their reality show “Kid Nation,” in which children are sent to perform hard labor on a ranch with no adult supervision, CBS announced today that it was readying a new reality show in which children are sent to the federal detention camp at Guantanamo.

The new program, called “Kid Detention,” is expected to be ready for broadcast in time for November sweeps, with the following promotional slogan: “One detention camp. Forty kids. No lawyers.”

CBS said that filming would begin as soon as forty children are “randomly rounded up.”

Within hours of its announcement, CBS found itself under fire from the organization Amnesty International, who warned of possible human rights violations if the children are sent to Guantanamo.

In an attempt to rebuff such criticism, CBS spokesperson Carol Foyler told reporters, “Nothing worse is going to happen to those kids than if they were on ‘Two and a Half Men.’”

Ms. Foyler also attempted to dismiss Amnesty International’s complaint that the kids at Guantanamo would not be permitted to have lawyers.

“We want to recreate the experience of being detainees, and of course that means no lawyers,” Ms. Foyler said. “Besides, just like the other detainees, these kids haven’t been charged with any crime.”

If “Kid Detention” takes off in the ratings as expected, Ms. Foyler said, the network was considering launching another series, “Kid Rendition,” in which the children are flown to Egypt for further questioning.

Too Many Barns

This weekend my Dad was here helping me with some household projects. Of course we had to go to Home Depot on Saturday. In the course of this we saw a massive new subdivision full of the big homes I like to call "McMansions." Dad remarked that these were expensive homes and it was remarkable so many people are able to afford them. I said that it is ironic how families are getting smaller and smaller while houses are getting bigger and bigger.

Now I suspect that many of those who inhabit McMansions really can't afford them. Their dreams will end unhappily. But clearly there are substantial numbers of people who have no problem buying $400,000 houses. Here in Texas the property taxes can be as almost much as your principal and interest payments, too.

Then on Sunday I heard yesterday's Gospel reading, Luke 12:13-21. Christ tells the story of a rich man who probably lived in a sort of ancient McMansion:

Then he told them a parable.
“There was a rich man whose land produced a bountiful harvest.
He asked himself, ‘What shall I do,
for I do not have space to store my harvest?’
And he said, ‘This is what I shall do:
I shall tear down my barns and build larger ones.
There I shall store all my grain and other goods
and I shall say to myself, “Now as for you,
you have so many good things stored up for many years,
rest, eat, drink, be merry!”’
But God said to him,
‘You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you;
and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?’
Thus will it be for all who store up treasure for themselves
but are not rich in what matters to God.”

"I shall tear down my barns and build larger ones." Hits a little close to home, doesn't it? It's exactly what we in America have been doing in the real estate boom of the last few years. This parable warns us that a time will come when our treasures will be useless. Earlier in the passage Christ says it is fine to be wealthy, as long as your life does not consist of your possessions. It's all a matter of priorities - which for all too many of us are frequently misplaced. I'm guilty of it as much as anyone.

With that in mind, consider this video clip of Wall Street pundit Jim Cramer going nuts on a live news program. Cramer is mad because the mortgage bond market is blowing up. He wants Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to bail out all the poor millionaires for whom losing money is apparently an unfamiliar experience. Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for those guys.

Phantom Senator

I will not vote for anything until General Petraeus passes on it. No senator, no congressman—no matter how much I respect you—you’re not going to be able, in my opinion, to give the advice that General Petraeus can give, and I’m going to wait till he comes back and listen to his advice and not some politician.

--Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), speaking on Meet The Press [transcript]

Attention South Carolina readers: did you know there is a new Senator representing you in Washington? He looks like Lindsey Graham, but his real name is Petraeus. That is at least the practical effect of what Lindsey Graham has decided to do by delegating his senatorial vote to the General. He said it right there on national TV: "I will not vote for anything until General Petraeus passes on it."

Now I am sure General Petraeus is a very smart and patriotic man. However, we have a tradition in this country called "civilian control" of the military. Senators are supposed to consider the facts and make up their own minds when asked to vote on issues of national defense. Their job is not to simply rubber-stamp whatever suggestions or requests the generals make to them. If it were, we could save a lot of time and money by eliminating the Senate.

Sen. Graham apparently does not want to make up his own mind. He will instead abdicate the position to which South Carolina voters elected him, allowing General Petraeus decide how he will vote. I do not know what state the general calls home. Hopefully he has the same priorities as the people of South Carolina, since your actual Senator clearly does not.

Incidentally, it was Sen. Graham who, during the recent debate over the immigration bill, said that those who opposed that highly flawed bit of legislation were "bigots." That aggravated a lot of people and it seems likely that his political career is finished. Maybe that is why he is outsourcing his vote to General Petraeus; he needs the time to look for a new job.

The Fallible Media

I wasn’t going to write about this but people are asking me. Apparently, for some I am now the go-to guy when thorny theological squabbles break out in the media.

It is indeed a good bet that anytime the mainstream news reports on religion they will be make serious errors. Such is the case with a document issued by the Vatican this week regarding the nature of “The Church.” Here are some headlines I found:

• You are not real churches, Pope tells Protestants
• Is this that old-time religion?
• Locals react to Pope’s proclamation of Catholic supremacy
• Pope is certainly not a uniter

Here is the actual document that is the source of all these stories. It is not very long. I dare you to actually read it and find the type of attacks on non-Catholic Christians the news stories talk about. It is really quite respectful of other Christians, without downplaying the real differences between them.

Furthermore, it is not a “proclamation” or a “decree.” It doesn’t even come from the Pope, though he did approve it – as he does most everything the Vatican issues. The words are not his, however.

Anyway, the document states nothing new. It is a clarification of what the Catholic Church has always said, and is directed mainly at renegade Catholic theologians who argue that Vatican II changed some key doctrines.

The word “church” is used in an extremely precise way. I will try to summarize: Catholic belief is that the “Church” is defined by its ability to dispense valid sacraments, primarily the Eucharist. Sacraments are valid only to the extent they come from the Apostles and their successors.

The Catholic Church can do this because its bishops can trace their ordination, in an unbroken line, all the way back to St. Peter. This is called “Apostolic Succession.” The Orthodox churches can do the same thing, to different Apostles. Hence they are also considered Church with a capital “C” even though they do not recognize the Pope's authority.

Protestants and other Christian churches don’t have Apostolic Succession. Some lost it in the Reformation, while newer denominations never had it. Hence they cannot have valid sacraments and are not considered “Church” in the same sense as Catholic and Orthodox are.

This does not mean that these other groups aren’t Christians and aren’t saved. Quite the opposite, as the document in question explicitly says:

It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.

In other words, the Catholic Church acknowledges that other Christian denominations have significance and importance and are instruments of salvation, even “though we believe they suffer from defects.” I don’t get why this should surprise or insult anyone. All religions believe that other religions suffer from defects. That’s what makes them religions in the first place. Catholic doctrine is that truth is truth, no matter who is saying it. The fact that other churches disagree on some subjects does not diminish the value of the things that they do get right. In other words,

…the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.

So how do you get from this rather benign statement to the kind of ecclesial insult that the news stories reported? All I can say is that the reporters and/or their editors either didn’t want to get the story right, or didn’t care. The document is short; an educated person can read it in 15 minutes or less. The Vatican has plenty of people who are available to answer questions from reporters. Any reporter who covers this beat should be at least generally familiar with Catholic beliefs. Yet they still got it wrong. Makes you wonder how hard they are trying, does it not?

In any case, many non-Catholics who have read the stories obviously feel hurt, insulted and angry. That was clearly not the intent, and I’m sure people at the Vatican regret the misunderstanding. Unfortunately, no matter what they say it will get twisted around by people who have other agendas. The Pope knows this very well. Fortunately, he does not let it dissuade him from speaking the truth that he believes the world needs to hear.

I'm reminded of John, chapter 6, when Christ said He is the Bread of Life. We are told that many of the disciples turned away and left because of His words. He had already patiently explained himself at great length. Some people still didn't get it. We don’t see Christ chasing after them, saying "Guys, wait! Let me clarify! My PR consultant is right here!" He simply taught His lesson with love and charity - and then allowed people to choose. That is, I think, what Pope Benedict tries to do. We would all do well to follow his example.

UPDATE 7/15/07: Here is an interesting article about this controversy by Albert Mohler, who is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Mohler says he is not offended at all and concurs that there is really nothing new here. He appreciates that these important differences are being clarified, for it is a necessary step toward having a conversation about them.

He also makes another important point. The Catholic view of "Church" is built on whether the sacraments are valid. Baptists - and most other evangelicals - do not accept the entire concept of "sacraments." In the Baptist view, baptism and the Lord's Supper are purely symbolic acts. This is why Protestant churches that do have sacraments, such as Episcopalians, are the most offended by the Vatican document. It calls the validity of their sacraments into question. Because Baptists don't care about sacraments, they are not as concerned about this point.

UPDATE 7/20/07: Here is an illustrated ecumenical conversation about this issue that explains it better than anything else I've seen.