Tuesday, June 26, 2007
On Fairness, on Evan, and on Barack and Religion
I could write on the surger (lots of death, lots of violence, and the future still up in the air) or on immigration (have backers won the votes in the Senate, and if they do, will they have votes in the House). But this week there are three issues that get to the core of my passions.
The Revival of the Fairness Act
The new Movie – Evan Almighty
And Barak’s speech at the UCC convention
The Revival of the Fairness Act – What is Fair?
Last week Trent Lott, Senator of Miss (R) said that he thought talk radio had too much power, that it was running the country. He has since backed down on such comments, but Sunday Diane Feinstein made a similar crack, saying “I remember when there was a fairness doctrine,” she said, “and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people.”
Does anyone really think we got serious and correct reporting before the breakdown of the control over information after cable television and the end of the fairness doctrine. Do not forget that it was Charles Cronkite, the man who used to sign off saying, “And that’s the way it is” who said we lost the Tet Offensive and the War in Vietnam, when we won massively the Tet Offensive and in fact, we left Vietnam in a good position, only to have the result become an embarrassment when the Congress, at the height of Watergate power, declined to support the South Vietnamese government.
I readily admit to being a modest postmodernist. I do not think that there is no truth, but I think we must admit our biases and that our view of the truth is always rooted in certain presuppositions. Senator Feinstein simply wants to go back to the day when those of the Left persuasion did not face the scrutiny of a counter-press movement.
Now, I listen to talk radio – both political and sports. Most of my friends listen to NPR and cannot believe that I don’t. I don’t because my experience of their coverage is that it is blinded by their liberal bias and because honestly, it bores me to tears. Guess I am not too sophisticated. NPR is not balanced or fair, it is left-leaning and snooty. Aside from the fact that my tax dollars are going to it (granted not much, but technically I am supporting it), I don’t really care. If there is an audience out there for it, then fine.
But any attempt to create fairness is going to necessarily end up skewing Left. The Left have the dominant positions in the media culture. Again, that is fine. People self-select largely their vocations. So those of a Left persuasion go towards media, higher ed., technology based corporations (which have a strong libertarian bias that operates Left)), and the Law. More conservative people go into small business and entrepreneurial type vocations. Great. I am not truly in either camp, but I do believe in the power of the individual to make those decisions. But let us not pretent anything about fairness. Was my education in college “fair”? Was the process of selecting a spouse “fair”? Is life “fair”?
I remember the line spoken by Private Kilrain in the great movie Gettysburg. He says, “Fair. Who said anything about fair. No to things in nature have an equal chance. What I am fighting for is the chance to prove I am a better man then them.”
That is why the “fairest” thing to do is let people decide who they want to listen to and on what topics. If a show is fun and informative, people will listen. If it is not, then they wont. NPR works largely because its audience likes it and supports it. Rush Limbaugh and Hugh Hewitt’s shows work because their audience like them and support them. That is the definition of fair.
The real issue is when we don’t have much of a choice. When state universities, which are the only affordable option for many kids in America, force you to take classes from professors who instead of teaching their content in as close to possible a value-neutral manner, instead use their positions to push agendas, that is not “fair.” That is a form of forced propaganda. If Democrats really want to enact a “fairness” doctrine, how about they make all college courses either “opinion neutral” or require two professors to teach all courses, one from each of the two major sides (or three, hey, its all good) of the positions being discussed in class, and let the student sift through the data for the facts.
But fairness…PPPllleeeaaasssee.
Evan Almighty – A Great Movie but a Mighty Disaster
Went to see Evan Almighty on Saturday with the wife and kids. Now a couple of facts up front. I saw, I think, Bruce Almighty once all the way through. I didn’t like it. Found it too risqué, to foolish about faith, and trying to hard to be both thoughtful and funny. A lot of my friends loved it. Not me. When I see it on television now, its “Next Channel” time.
So, we went on Saturday with a certain amount of trepedition. We saw it was PG, and figured it would be safe for the kids, but throughout the whole movie, we waited for the next shoe to drop. But you know what…it never did.
The fact is the movie was a lot of fun, family friendly, thoughtful, and in end a good family movie that allowed us all to talk about it afterwords (well, except for Xaris, but she doesn’t talk yet).
I am writing this because from what I read: that people in the Midwest and South wont see it because they are afraid it will insult fiath by and be raunchy like Bruce Almighty and people in the East and Canada wont see it because they are afraid its a religious film.
So, if this story is correct, people on the East Coast and Canada are scared off by the movie because they think its too preachy (it is not, but it does take faith seriously). People in the Midwest and South do not want to go see it because Bruce Almighty was pseudo-indecent. I believe this is what you call a Catch 22.
In fact, the only corollary between the first and second movies is that Morgan Freeman is God. Yes, Evan is the same anchorman that we see in Bruce Almighty, but that previous life is unimportant. So, its not so much a sequal as a fresh film using the basic fact that Morgan Freeman is God.
Go see this film. Look, its not Citizen Kane, but it doesn’t pretend to be. Most films that try to be Citizen Kane take themselves far too seriously, and are just pompous (I always wondered if when they made Kitizen Kane they were making, you know, the greatest movie of all time). But it is a good, heart-warming movie, that makes you think, makes you laugh, and makes you want to go and spend more time with your family.
Maybe that is the problem with the movie. Its directed at the family. Families in the summer are not going to the movies – they are camping or do something else fun outside. Its single people who go see movies. To see Jim Carrey (ick!) they will give up two hours. To see Steve Carrell in a family movie? Not going to happen.
So go see it, you will enjoy it as long as you remember, its not Citizen Kane, but it is fun!
For a great review on the film see : http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWM0MjgyMjE2OTRlYTVlOTNhZmQ5NTBhYmRiNzNmNmQ=
Barack and Religion – Making Things Muddy at the UCC
Can we start off by being honest. The United Church of Christ is not really a Christian faith anymore. Oh, they like Jesus, don’t get me wrong. But, if the core of the Christian faith is the Nicean and Apostolic Creeds, they simply are outside of that today. My friend who is in the UCC likes to call it “Unitarians Considering Christ.” They are about religion, not about the Christian faith. Look, they may fight on this declaration, but you know, if you are way outside 2000 years of the Christian faith, its not everyone else who is wrong, its you.
Barack’s church is a member of the UCC. The UCC has hemoareged people in their white churches, but has done a decent job of builing liberal, civil right oriented churches in the black community. The great thing about America – we all get to choose our faith, and today about 1.2 million people are still on the rolls of the UCC (does anyone want to guess how many people worship there each Sunday?).
Here is an good summary of his talk:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/obama-accuses-religious-right-of-perverting-faith/2007/06/24/1182623741765.html
Here is the main thing about Barack’s comments. While it is true that the Religious Right (of which I am not a member) has become polarized in the past thirty years, the Left, both religious and secular, have no one to blame except themselves. It is the Left that:
1) Championed abortion resulting in the death of 40 million babies since the 1960s.
2) Is pushing the gay rights agenda to a point beyond mere protection to preference.
3) Want marriage to become such an open definition that it ends up meaning nothing at all.
The Left was absolutely right on the issue of Civil Rights in the 1960s. Aside from that…well, I don’t think their attack on all that is traditional has really served the nation as a whole. I am an old fashioned liberal, meaning, in the good Christian tradition, that people are free to do as they wish as long as their behavior does not impact society or other persons. The problem is that the Left now lifts the concerns of the individual above the society and others, even when some forms of harm (abortion for example) are experienced.
Those who today make up the Religious Right are the descendents of the populists who often manned Democratic campaigns throughout the 20th century. The Democratic Party decided in the late 1960s to become the party of the special interests and of the minority alone, and in the process alienated many Christians because they were not just against the views of many Christians, but they were for things that would ultimately impact the lives of these Christians.
So should Christians be serious about politics and the world? Yes. Should they be dogmatically one party? Well, when both parties respect the views of Christians and stop viewing those things that are traditional as inherently evil…well, maybe then I and others can freely join any party and agitate for justice, righteousness, and goodness – for the individual and the society.
