Peace Like A River


It was a wide river, mistakable for a lake or even an ocean unless you'd been wading and knew its current. Somehow I'd crossed it... Now I saw the stream regrouped below, flowing on through what might've been vineyards, pastures, orhards... It flowed between and alongside the rivers of people; from here it was no more than a silver wire winding toward the city. - Leif Enger, Peace Like A River

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Getting it from both sides

Hard to port, Mr. Sulu.

During the panel segment of Tuesday's Special Report with Brit Hume, Hume said he had received a press release stating some AIDS activists were going to Crawford to join the Cindy Sheehan circus. (Hume did not say who sent the press release.)

Does this not say something about some of the more, uh, red-eyed elements of the Left?

Does this not say that the carnival in Crawford really isn't about a grieving mother? That these lefty groups down there are, dare I say it, capitalizing on a mother's grief for political gain?

What does AIDS possibly have to do with Sheehan and war in Iraq?

Then again, it being a carnival, we've got just about everybody hanging out in Crawford except for Puke and Snot.

Among the folks either there, or who have glommed onto this, is Joan Baez!

Joan Baez! Ah, the glory days of the 60s are here again. When Joan Baez shows up, you know something more than letting a mother grieve in her own private way is going on.

Reverse thrusters. Hard to starboard, Mr. Sulu.

On Monday, Pat Robertson said that the United States should assassinate Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, in order to prevent Venezuela from becoming a "launching pad for communist influence and Muslim extremism".

Sigh.

Do we even need to bother acknowledging this a dumb thing to say? It's an even dumber thing for Pat Robertson to say.

Let me say, I am a conservative Christian. I am no Robertson hater, and I'm not a big fan either, I don't pay much attention to him, but sometimes Robertson seems to have the political skills of a potato. He must know foes are lying in wait for him in the tall grass, waiting for him to say something this tinny.

I bring this up, however, to illustrate something about the media. CNN practically went wall to wall with this. This! Pat Robertson! For the love of pete, Robertson ran for President in, what, 1988? Sweet blessed Jane, CNN hears the name "Pat Robertson" and flecks of foam start appearing around their mouths. Look, a Christian figure saying something stupid!! Run with it! No excuse is too thin to commence with Christian flogging. Who, outside of political junkies, even knows who Robertson is anymore?

I wrote about this a few years ago, when Senator McCain was running for President. At the time, I wrote:

Enemies of the religious right continue to make the mistake that the religious right is a homogeneous group, and that Robertson and Falwell speak for them all. The truth is there are a great many people in this country who consider themselves conservative and Christian, and who have no connections whatsoever to Robertson and Falwell. These people, though, hear such attacks as aimed at them personally. McCain's strategy of angering a significant portion of the Republican base is a misguided way to pursue the Republican nomination, and indeed, he has now dropped out of the race.

The national media and the secular world tend to view the religious right as something resembling a grape, a squishy body centered around a nut in the middle, and the only good that comes from it is when it dies and rots.


CNN really couldn't care less about Chavez. And they really don't care that Robertson gave Chavez and his thugocracy down there a chance to take the focus off their strong arm tactics and put it on some minor figure in the United States.

No, CNN put the pedal to the metal and revealed what it really thinks about those Christians. Again.

Note to CNN: Robertson does not speak for all Christians. He doesn't even speak for most Christians. He is not the central brain of the Great Hive Mind that sends all us Christians our preprogrammed instructions for the day. What he said wasn't even particlarly Christian.

What's the difference between these two tales of wackiness? As the Lileks link shows, there are many on the Left who were sick the day the debating team went over the finer points of rhetoric and argument, such as don't use profanity, and don't call your opponent a sick twisted perverted lying sack of Nazi crap. And as the scorecard in Crawford shows, it's all about opposing Bush, because he's one of them Christians, ya know. The American Taliban, and all that.

Whereas on the Right, I'll bet you a shiny new quarter there won't be too many people defending Robertson.

The Left is at its most exercised when it is reacting to the Right's values. The Right is at its most exercised when it is defending its own values.

The Democratic Party and its liberal allies are going to be confined to smaller and smaller blue enclaves unless it develops its own positive message, and figures out if it stands for anything.

(btw, I want history to note that as I write this, I am, in fact, in my living room and in my pajamas.)

-----
Captain Ed is certainly not defending Robertson.
Protein Wisdom runs through Mr. Robertson's neighborhood.
Sister Toldjah is not surprised by too much of the Robertson flap.
Matt Margolis looks at some of Cindy Sheehan's newfound friends.
Hugh Hewitt states these kinds of protests are a relic of the past.
Michelle Malkin reports Cindy Sheehan is going back to Crawford. (Via The Buzz)
Outside the Beltway says Robertson's comments aren't new.

1 Comments:

  • At Wed Aug 24, 01:37:00 AM, Anonymous said…

    Aids? From a pure medical standpoint, it is quite a minor disease process in the US. (In other countries, it is devasting the countryside - in the main because of promiscuity.
    Simple facts. I am not going into all the political/moral brouhaha.)
    Finite medical research dollars and finite resources for disease processes are best served when applied to areas where the most gain is achieved.
    Aids, for some very odd reasons, gets MEDIA attention like one would not believe if one would not otherwise know much about the US medical system.
    Aids, in the main, is a disease brought about by lifestyle choices, mainly two in fact. Illicit drug use and extremely risky sexual behavior.
    Go to CDC and see which diseases effect overall health and morbidity the most. I dont think Aids is in the top ten last I checked.
    What am I advocating? Aids research ought to be afforded a piece of the pie, but only proportional to its effect. The lions share should go to impacting diseases and its origins that stand a chance of success. Like vaccinations (pound of prevention and all that) or bill gates anti malarial campaign.
    Question; how and why does Hollywood get away with massive Aids coverage?????!!!!
    There are huge numbers of other very worthy causes!!!!!!
    How about orphans (thanks A. Jolie, one of the few voices in the wilderness) or poverty issues, or education issues, clean water projects or enviromental matters?
    Choose your battles wisely, make a hit count when and where it can do the most good.
    For those not up on modern medicine, read up on it. Its fascinating.
    Viruses, like Aids, have never been successfuly interdicted short of a vaccine. Aids treatments, once infected, only delay the inevitable in 99% of cases.
    I am all for virus research. Lets just be realistic in our expectations.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home