I've come upon a new blog that I would recommend to anyone who wants to think rightly about the Church- its music, its purpose,its sacraments, etc. The blog is done by a good friend and pastor, Zac Hicks.
Check it out here!
5/26/09
The Most Troubling Quote of All
A supreme court nominee in this day and age has very little shot of keeping secrets. The hyper-information age yields quotes and makes it easy for even the casual blogger to do research. Consequently, less than 24 hours after President Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, her many troubling quotes have surfaced and two in particular are getting a lot of airtime. They are as follows (the New York Times has a good article that covers most of the initial vetting):
The media has already over-commented on these quotes. Sure, these quotes have their obvious issues: racism and judicial activism to name a few. But the most troubling quote of all reveals Sotomayor's foundation for all other views of law. The following quote should disturb all Americans most deeply (from NY Times):
This philosophy is blatant postmodern relativism and should be rejected on all fronts. This philosophy is not exclusive to liberals as many conservatives hold it as well, so my criticism is equal-opportunity (something Sotomayor should appreciate). If there is no objectivity, why is there even law? What's to make a sociopath's morality just as valid as a normal citizen? This is an outlandish example to be sure, but I am pointing out that Sotomayor's foundational perspective is morally egregious.
It is sadly disappointing that someone who is supposed to uphold the pinnacle of law (the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights) sees those documents as an act of judicial power and not eternal moral truths. Freedom of speech? Nope, that one's a constructed truth according to Sotomayor and not a foundational moral principle that all government should abide by.
If there are only a series of perspectives and no eternal moral truth, then law is a fruitless exercise. What makes Sotomayor's perspective better than a white person's? She makes a self-refuting argument (as all relativistic thinking ultimately is). Furthermore, if all law is only a series of perspectives competing for power, then we have the foundation for totalitarianism.
True moral reformers believe in absolute truth and eternal moral principles (ie "all men are created equal). But in Sotomayor's perspective, there isn't even room for Martin Luther King Jr. because his perspective was just one of many competing for the law. His perspective, in its foundation, really can't be better than anyone else's in Sotomayor's views. That's why she can never be as great as King Jr. and why her nomination and probable confirmation is troubling.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who
hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor.
A “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds:
“And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we
don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating
it. I’m — you know.”
The media has already over-commented on these quotes. Sure, these quotes have their obvious issues: racism and judicial activism to name a few. But the most troubling quote of all reveals Sotomayor's foundation for all other views of law. The following quote should disturb all Americans most deeply (from NY Times):
She also approvingly quoted several law professors who said that “to judge is an
exercise of power” and that “there is no objective stance but only a series of
perspectives.”
This philosophy is blatant postmodern relativism and should be rejected on all fronts. This philosophy is not exclusive to liberals as many conservatives hold it as well, so my criticism is equal-opportunity (something Sotomayor should appreciate). If there is no objectivity, why is there even law? What's to make a sociopath's morality just as valid as a normal citizen? This is an outlandish example to be sure, but I am pointing out that Sotomayor's foundational perspective is morally egregious.
It is sadly disappointing that someone who is supposed to uphold the pinnacle of law (the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights) sees those documents as an act of judicial power and not eternal moral truths. Freedom of speech? Nope, that one's a constructed truth according to Sotomayor and not a foundational moral principle that all government should abide by.
If there are only a series of perspectives and no eternal moral truth, then law is a fruitless exercise. What makes Sotomayor's perspective better than a white person's? She makes a self-refuting argument (as all relativistic thinking ultimately is). Furthermore, if all law is only a series of perspectives competing for power, then we have the foundation for totalitarianism.
True moral reformers believe in absolute truth and eternal moral principles (ie "all men are created equal). But in Sotomayor's perspective, there isn't even room for Martin Luther King Jr. because his perspective was just one of many competing for the law. His perspective, in its foundation, really can't be better than anyone else's in Sotomayor's views. That's why she can never be as great as King Jr. and why her nomination and probable confirmation is troubling.
5/25/09
From President to President
Moral views are very telling about a person, that's because people act and think most deeply from their moral conclusions. President's are no different. Obama, in his speech a few weeks ago to Notre Dame, addresses the topic of abortion again, rhetorically placing himself in the middle but not differentiating himself at all from extreme pro-choice positions in actuality. Some excerpts:
Yet, these things he is not doing nor does he wish to do because he'd lose his democratic base. Obama overturned the Mexico City Policy which now makes it legal to fund abortion overseas. He wanted to put money for "family planning" services in the stimulus bill because that would reduce healthcare costs. Obama sees most issues through the lens of politics, expediency, and pragmatics. It seems to Obama, that common ground is where ethics comes from, instead of eternal, moral truth. He speaks nice sounding words, but in the end his rhetoric is empty. Contrast that with Ronald Reagan's words in Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, a book written in his 3rd year in office. Some excerpts:
Obama is a moral midget compared to Reagan. He needs to believe in the truth that government can prevent murder and has a stake in justice. Reagan did, and we must remember his words not to lose hope.
The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with
wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege
in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and
scientific advances, we see here in this country and around the globe violence
and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient
times. (strong words that I wish he would actually believe as it respects
abortion, because in that case the strong always dominate the weak).
[A doctor] wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose
abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."
Fair-minded words.
After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote
back to him and I thanked him. And I didn't change my underlying
position (emphasis mine), but I did tell my staff to change the words
on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same
presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because
when we do that -- when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not
think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe -- that's when
we discover at least the possibility of common ground.
That's when
we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that
this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both
moral and spiritual dimensions.
So let us work together to reduce
the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies.
(Applause.) Let's make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let's provide care
and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let's
honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible
conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are
grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect
for the equality of women." Those are things we can do. (Applause.)
Yet, these things he is not doing nor does he wish to do because he'd lose his democratic base. Obama overturned the Mexico City Policy which now makes it legal to fund abortion overseas. He wanted to put money for "family planning" services in the stimulus bill because that would reduce healthcare costs. Obama sees most issues through the lens of politics, expediency, and pragmatics. It seems to Obama, that common ground is where ethics comes from, instead of eternal, moral truth. He speaks nice sounding words, but in the end his rhetoric is empty. Contrast that with Ronald Reagan's words in Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, a book written in his 3rd year in office. Some excerpts:
Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the
Constitution. No serious scholar... has argued that the framers of the
Constitution intended to create such a right.
We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life-the unborn-
without diminishing the value of all human life.
Over the first two years of my administration I have closely followed
and assisted efforts in Congress to reverse the tide of abortion- efforts of
congressmen, senators and citizens responding to an urgent moral
crisis.
Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose
heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a
Supreme Court decision [Roe] that denied the value of certain human lives.
The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in one day, or a year, or
even a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and
deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our
black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and
finally prevailed.
I am convinced that Americans do not want to play God with the value of
human life. It is not for us to decide who is worthy to live and who is
not.
I have endorsed each of these measures (congressional bills), as well
as the more difficult route of a constitutional amendment, and I will give these
initiatives my full support.
Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land
when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should
therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when
some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to
abortion or infanticide. My administration is dedicated to the
preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for
preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all
human beings, the right without which no other rights have any
meaning.
Obama is a moral midget compared to Reagan. He needs to believe in the truth that government can prevent murder and has a stake in justice. Reagan did, and we must remember his words not to lose hope.
5/21/09
Worldly People
G.K. Chesteron says in chapter 2 of Orthodoxy, written in 1908.
I begin to think about the millions of high school and college graduations that were occuring this month. I think about all the messages of self-reliance and believing in yourself: the Henry David Thoreau quotes, Emerson quotes, Dr. Seuss quotes. They all mind-numbingly say the same things about boring self-confidence. For once, I'd love to go up and read Chesterton here. That'd shake them up.
Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether
on a few cynical maxims which are not true. Once I remember walking
with a preosperous publisher; who made a remark which I had often heard before;
it is, indeed, almost a motto of the modern world. Yet I had heard it once
too often, and I saw suddenly that there was nothing in it. The publisher
said of somebody, "That man will get on; he believes in himself." And I
remember that as I lifted my head to listen, my eye caught an omnibus on which
was written, "Hamwell" [a psychiatric hospital, I believe, DS]. I
said to him, "Shall I tell you where the men are who believe most in
themselves? For I can tell you. I know of men who believe in
themselves more colossally than Napolean or Caesar. I know where flames
the fixed star of certainty and success. I can guide you to the thrones of
the Supermen. The men who really believe in themselves are all in lunatic
asylums.".... "Complete self-confidence is not merely a sin; compelte
self-confidence is a weakness. Believing utterly in one's self is a
hysterical and superstitious belief...."
I begin to think about the millions of high school and college graduations that were occuring this month. I think about all the messages of self-reliance and believing in yourself: the Henry David Thoreau quotes, Emerson quotes, Dr. Seuss quotes. They all mind-numbingly say the same things about boring self-confidence. For once, I'd love to go up and read Chesterton here. That'd shake them up.
5/20/09
Americans Grow in Moral Views
For the first time since Gallup began asking the question in 1995, the majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life.
Majority rule does not a moral truth make. But moral truth can be supported by a majority of people, and it seems like America is finally going in the right direction. There are no morally clear arguments (I repeat, zero morally clear arguments) that should make the practice of abortion-on-demand legal. Only in extreme and rare circumstances (incest, life of mother at stake, and debatably rape), should abortion be allowable.
The only argument at stake is whether the person inside the womb is a person. And the person is a person. The person has a uniquely identifiable DNA which is different from both mother or father outright, and is in need of no other additions to qualify him/herself as a person with constitutional protections. These persons have a right not to be murdered. A woman's right to choose does not and should not supercede a baby's right to live. Any other argument is a sideshow (ie "making abortion illegal would create a dangerous black market for abortion," which by the way commits the logical fallacy of question-begging because it assumes that the person inside the womb is not, in fact, a person because killing a person is indeed a dangerous market already).
I grow so sick and tired of a general liberal consensus which considers my view unenlightened, behind-the-times, and religious-in-nature only. These are bad arguments. And for the first time in Gallup's case, a majority of Americans finally disagree with the absurd liberal consensus. Let's now translate these conclusions into state laws and legitimate constitutional protections.
For the most clear, logical, and truthful arguments in favor of the pro-life position (without an overt religious tone) consult Francis Beckwith's book called Defending Life.
With the first pro-choice president in eight years already making
changes to the nation's policies on funding abortion overseas, expressing his
support for the Freedom of Choice Act, and moving toward rescinding federal job
protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion
procedures, Americans -- and, in particular, Republicans -- seem to be taking a
step back from the pro-choice position. However, the retreat is evident among
political moderates as well as conservatives.
Majority rule does not a moral truth make. But moral truth can be supported by a majority of people, and it seems like America is finally going in the right direction. There are no morally clear arguments (I repeat, zero morally clear arguments) that should make the practice of abortion-on-demand legal. Only in extreme and rare circumstances (incest, life of mother at stake, and debatably rape), should abortion be allowable.
The only argument at stake is whether the person inside the womb is a person. And the person is a person. The person has a uniquely identifiable DNA which is different from both mother or father outright, and is in need of no other additions to qualify him/herself as a person with constitutional protections. These persons have a right not to be murdered. A woman's right to choose does not and should not supercede a baby's right to live. Any other argument is a sideshow (ie "making abortion illegal would create a dangerous black market for abortion," which by the way commits the logical fallacy of question-begging because it assumes that the person inside the womb is not, in fact, a person because killing a person is indeed a dangerous market already).
I grow so sick and tired of a general liberal consensus which considers my view unenlightened, behind-the-times, and religious-in-nature only. These are bad arguments. And for the first time in Gallup's case, a majority of Americans finally disagree with the absurd liberal consensus. Let's now translate these conclusions into state laws and legitimate constitutional protections.
For the most clear, logical, and truthful arguments in favor of the pro-life position (without an overt religious tone) consult Francis Beckwith's book called Defending Life.
5/19/09
Quote of the Day
Consider the following quote written in 1921. Think about the desires for and heeded calls for increasing government control and statism.
Powerful words indeed.
The whole development of modern society has tended mightily toward the
limitation of the realm of freedom for the individual man. The tendency is
most clearly seen in socialism; a socialistic state would mean the reduction to
a minimum of the sphere of individual choice. Labor and recreation, under
a socialistic government, would both be prescribed, and individual liberty would
be gone. But the same tendency exhibits itself today even in those
communities where the name of socialism is most abhorred. When once the
majority has determined that a certain regime is beneficial, that regime without
further hesitation is forced ruthlessly upon the individual man. It never
seems to occur to modern legislatures that although "welfare" is good, forced
welfare may be bad [emphasis mine]. In other words, utilitarianism is
being carried out to its logical conclusions; in the interests of physical
well-being the great principles of liberty are being thrown ruthlessly to the
winds.
J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, 1921.
Powerful words indeed.
5/14/09
Rites of Passage
Bar Mitzvahs, debutante balls, and graduation. What do all these things have in common? In some sense, they are all rites of passage. But passage into what? I suppose that they are all passages into adulthood in various subcultures. But then what does adulthood mean? I guess it means taking responsibility for oneself, making ones own decisions, or supporting oneself financially. But are those things really qualitative to adulhood? I know plenty of teenagers who fit those criteria of adulthood and plenty of people over the age of 30 who do not fit those criteria (come to think of it, do I fit that criteria?). So what makes someone an adult? And does a rite of passage ever accomplish those things?
I have little nostalgic moments, you see. Often those moments pass without me getting to post something on this blog. And by the time the moment has passed, I find myself quite trite. But I'm remaining a little nostalgic this week because I'm graduating. But this graduation is different. For the first time in my life, there is no further education in the foreseeable horizon. I have finally finished school: preschool, elementary school, middle school, high school, college, and grad school. Lots of schools had lots of me. I finally have to wrestle with the fact that I'm an adult. Or at least maybe I am.
And I haven't necessarily looked forward to graduation, but if I didn't have that ceremony would I have as much closure on the biggest part of my life thus far? Think about it. Since preschool, I've probably spent at least 4-5 hours a day in school for 5 days a week (counting class time and homework- the number might even be higher). That is a huge portion of my identity since I was 3 years old. What am I to do with the vast identity I have created about grade performance, reading, and writing?
I have a lot of questions on this post, and not many answers. But I suspect that in some way the events of Saturday will remain with me in a deeper way than the mere symbolism of passing across a stage or moving a tassel. I'm just not sure how yet.
I have little nostalgic moments, you see. Often those moments pass without me getting to post something on this blog. And by the time the moment has passed, I find myself quite trite. But I'm remaining a little nostalgic this week because I'm graduating. But this graduation is different. For the first time in my life, there is no further education in the foreseeable horizon. I have finally finished school: preschool, elementary school, middle school, high school, college, and grad school. Lots of schools had lots of me. I finally have to wrestle with the fact that I'm an adult. Or at least maybe I am.
And I haven't necessarily looked forward to graduation, but if I didn't have that ceremony would I have as much closure on the biggest part of my life thus far? Think about it. Since preschool, I've probably spent at least 4-5 hours a day in school for 5 days a week (counting class time and homework- the number might even be higher). That is a huge portion of my identity since I was 3 years old. What am I to do with the vast identity I have created about grade performance, reading, and writing?
I have a lot of questions on this post, and not many answers. But I suspect that in some way the events of Saturday will remain with me in a deeper way than the mere symbolism of passing across a stage or moving a tassel. I'm just not sure how yet.
5/11/09
A Parable of Culture Clash
A Secular liberal named Richard, a Christian named Billy, and a highly committed Muslim named Sayyid walk into a bar. Okay a pub. Okay they're on lunch break from their job. Something's been on Billy's mind, so he decides to talk to his friends about it.
Billy: Guys, my wife and I have been having problems lately. We want to move out of our apartment and into a house. Problem is, we can't agree on where to live. I want to live out in the suburbs and she wants to live down in the city. We just can't seem to agree. We're at a classic impasse. What's the right thing for me to do here?
Richard: Well, Billy, I think you're asking a misguided question. There's not really a right thing to do. Not with your wife, and not ever. Morality is constructed by human beings and you and your wife can construct it however you want. Right and wrong are not real categories of morality. There is no such thing, really. Does that help, Billy?
Billy: Um, not really. That leaves me with no advice on what I should actually do. What about you, Sayyid?
Sayyid: Your wife should do whatever you want her to do. You should move to the suburbs. Does that help?
Billy: Well not really. I told you we were at an impasse. Plus, our relationship does not really look that dictatorial.
Sayyid: Well it should. Your wife should submit to whatever you tell her to. As a matter of fact, if she won't agree with your desires, I think you should take matters into your own literal hands. After all, the Quran in Surah 4:34 says, "As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance). (Ali translation from 2001, 7th edition). Does that help?
Richard: Excuse me a minute! You mean to tell me you think it's okay to beat your wife, Sayyid? That is not right at all!
Sayyid: According to your own view, there is no right and wrong. Leave me alone and do not question my religious convictions. It is not right to do so.
Richard: I suppose you're right. Or I suppose you are right to believe whatever you believe, since there is no right or wrong.
Billy: Hold up guys! This conversation is ridiculous. I refuse to believe there is no right or wrong, and I refuse to resort to spousal abuse. Sayyid, domestic violence is illegal after all, and there's a reason for that. That's because it's wrong, despite whatever Richard agrees with. It's plain wrong. It's wrong in any time or place, in any culture. It's wrong. And beyond all that, neither of you have helped me with my problem at all!
Richard: I suppose you could find a halfway point between the city and the suburbs.
Sayyid: Compromise is a weak position, for sure.
Billy: Well, whatever the case is, I'm more inclined to love my wife first and give her what she desires, but if it comes to compromise, I guess that's the best suggestion I've heard yet. Say, when's that server coming? We've been sitting here for a while.
Billy: Guys, my wife and I have been having problems lately. We want to move out of our apartment and into a house. Problem is, we can't agree on where to live. I want to live out in the suburbs and she wants to live down in the city. We just can't seem to agree. We're at a classic impasse. What's the right thing for me to do here?
Richard: Well, Billy, I think you're asking a misguided question. There's not really a right thing to do. Not with your wife, and not ever. Morality is constructed by human beings and you and your wife can construct it however you want. Right and wrong are not real categories of morality. There is no such thing, really. Does that help, Billy?
Billy: Um, not really. That leaves me with no advice on what I should actually do. What about you, Sayyid?
Sayyid: Your wife should do whatever you want her to do. You should move to the suburbs. Does that help?
Billy: Well not really. I told you we were at an impasse. Plus, our relationship does not really look that dictatorial.
Sayyid: Well it should. Your wife should submit to whatever you tell her to. As a matter of fact, if she won't agree with your desires, I think you should take matters into your own literal hands. After all, the Quran in Surah 4:34 says, "As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance). (Ali translation from 2001, 7th edition). Does that help?
Richard: Excuse me a minute! You mean to tell me you think it's okay to beat your wife, Sayyid? That is not right at all!
Sayyid: According to your own view, there is no right and wrong. Leave me alone and do not question my religious convictions. It is not right to do so.
Richard: I suppose you're right. Or I suppose you are right to believe whatever you believe, since there is no right or wrong.
Billy: Hold up guys! This conversation is ridiculous. I refuse to believe there is no right or wrong, and I refuse to resort to spousal abuse. Sayyid, domestic violence is illegal after all, and there's a reason for that. That's because it's wrong, despite whatever Richard agrees with. It's plain wrong. It's wrong in any time or place, in any culture. It's wrong. And beyond all that, neither of you have helped me with my problem at all!
Richard: I suppose you could find a halfway point between the city and the suburbs.
Sayyid: Compromise is a weak position, for sure.
Billy: Well, whatever the case is, I'm more inclined to love my wife first and give her what she desires, but if it comes to compromise, I guess that's the best suggestion I've heard yet. Say, when's that server coming? We've been sitting here for a while.
5/6/09
The Top 10 Worst Countries to Blog
It's chic in this era of geopolitics to insult America. The President does it. Many "social justice" pastors do it. Way too many liberals condemn America's moral compass (which I find really ironic). But much of the time this rhetoric is misguided. I recognize that America is not a perfect country and has indeed propagated many social ills. Yet, if only for the sense of the rule of law and the 1st Amendment, America is a more moral country than most (if not all) in the world. I don't think that's a smug comment either. For at least proof that we're more moral than 10 other countries, try challenging the leading authorities of these countries on your blog.
Authoritarian regimes have been unable to stop the march of media
freedom, but they continue to try. And bloggers are in the crosshairs--sometimes
literally. CPJ has just come out with a report called "The
10 Worst Countries to be a Blogger"--no surprise that the Middle
East features prominently.
5/5/09
The Truth
Update: I had some problems embedding the video but it should be working now.
Sometimes I think I need to be a media watchdog. Television news is so atrociously sensational that almost all of it is yellow journalism (I'm talking to you, Dateline). Television, print, and radio all exist to make money. While there are ethical standards in journalism, one sees very little responsible reporting these days. What happened to caring about the truth? Allow me to humor you with one example from last week:
Oh really? You think it's in the public's best interest to know that a little boy in Mexico who started an "epidemic" is okay and will not die at all? The media throws around scare words such as "epidemic," "pandemic," and "extreme public safety precautions" (9 News isn't guilty of all of these but I have heard them in the last few days). And then the media tells us the real facts, such as no one in the US is dying of this, is close to dying of this, and that most with "swine" flu don't even need to be hospitalized. And you run 3-5 minute introductory pieces on the nightly news running with this story first for two weeks. How am I supposed to conclude anything else but that you are competing for ratings?
You media don't care about the truth. You care about the money. And the ironic thing is, in this case I think the ratings would have followed the truth.
I would have given anything for Adele Arakawa (of Denver's 9 News) to just get on the show and say, "This swine flu coverage is a bunch of bull. You know it. I know it. Let's talk about real issues." I would have been a devoted listener after that.
Sometimes I think I need to be a media watchdog. Television news is so atrociously sensational that almost all of it is yellow journalism (I'm talking to you, Dateline). Television, print, and radio all exist to make money. While there are ethical standards in journalism, one sees very little responsible reporting these days. What happened to caring about the truth? Allow me to humor you with one example from last week:
Oh really? You think it's in the public's best interest to know that a little boy in Mexico who started an "epidemic" is okay and will not die at all? The media throws around scare words such as "epidemic," "pandemic," and "extreme public safety precautions" (9 News isn't guilty of all of these but I have heard them in the last few days). And then the media tells us the real facts, such as no one in the US is dying of this, is close to dying of this, and that most with "swine" flu don't even need to be hospitalized. And you run 3-5 minute introductory pieces on the nightly news running with this story first for two weeks. How am I supposed to conclude anything else but that you are competing for ratings?
You media don't care about the truth. You care about the money. And the ironic thing is, in this case I think the ratings would have followed the truth.
I would have given anything for Adele Arakawa (of Denver's 9 News) to just get on the show and say, "This swine flu coverage is a bunch of bull. You know it. I know it. Let's talk about real issues." I would have been a devoted listener after that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
