The Arbery case

I haven't followed the Arbery case closely, so this post is discussing the issues more from a hypothetical standpoint: 

1. It's a problem when pundits default to a racial motive. This assumes, and pundits are usually explicit about this assumption, that nearly all whites are racist to some degree or another. Ironically, that's a bigoted assumption. It stereotypes whites as a class. A paradigm example of prejudice. 

In addition, it can be a self-fulling prophecy. If you constantly blame whites for racism without specific evidence for specific individuals, that foments racial animus. That foments racial resentment.

Since white folks kill other white folks and black folks kill other black folks, I don't think there's a presumptive racial motive when the assailant is white and the victim is black, or vice versa. 

It's like, suppose I bet on sports teams. If I normally bet on one team, then there's a pattern or bias. If, however, I normally bet on two different teams, if I alternate, then there's no discernible pattern or bias. 

2. Different people have different motives for inspecting a house under construction. In some cases they are looking to buy a house, and they want to see if this is a house they'd consider buying. 

In other cases, they're just curious. For instance, a house might be way outside their price range, and they like to see how the other half lives. This is their chance to see the kind of mansion rich folks live in. 

And in other cases, they're up to no good. 

3. This also raises the question of when we should be prepared to kill someone. We have a right to protect our life and livelihood. We have a right to protect our home and business. And just in general, if someone pulls a gun on you, that justifies killing them. They've threatened your life.

If someone commits armed robbery or armed burglary, I think they forfeit the right to life in relation to the victim because they forfeit the presumption that they won't murder the victim. They forfeit the presumption that they won't carry out their threat. Armed robbery or armed burglary carries the explicit or implicit threat to murder the victim. 

But to kill someone because they may be trespassing on someone else's property or robbing someone else's business is hardly justification to kill them. That's both literally and figuratively none of our business. You might report them to the police, but that's it. Same thing with merely suspicious activity. 

The Gospels as docudramas

Docudrama is a genre of modern television and videos that provides a useful lens for viewing certain narrative parts of the Bible, preeminently the Gospels.The techniques used in docudrama include the following: straightforward factual information or reportage as stated by the narrator of the documentary; commentary from the narrator; interviews with eyewitnesses or written statements by them; quotations from the writings of the subject of the documentary; video clips of speeches delivered by the subject of the documentary or excerpts from written copies of speeches; video clips that show the subject of the documentary interacting with other people (including both crowd scenes and scenes in which the subject interacts with an individual); and video clips of the physical places and landscapes in which the subject of the documentary performs important or customary actions.

Obviously there are no video clips of events that transpired in Bible times, but the genre of the docudrama is a helpful analogy to what we find in the Historical Books of the Bible and in the Gospels. These writings contain purely verbal versions of the ingredients that find their way into the docudramas that we view on television or in informational videos.  L. Ryken, A Complete Handbook of Literary Forms in the Bible (Crossway 2014), 63-64.

Epstein and assisted suicide

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/jeffrey-epstein-hyoid/

If it was "suicide," he had a lot of help :-)

Mass shootings

https://nypost.com/2018/08/30/america-doesnt-actually-lead-the-world-in-mass-shootings/

What really caused Notre Dame fire?

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/04/what_really_caused_the_notre_dame_cathedral_fire.html

Sleuthing the Notre Dame fire

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/04/notre-dame-fire-no-workers-were-in-the-cathedral-no-heat-sources-were-near-the-timber-frame

The collusion delusion

Unsurprisingly, rightwing pundits are hammering the mainstream media for bungling the "Russia collusion" story, but in one respect that misreads the issue. 

Now it's true that the "news" media was self-deceived because the liberal establishment reflexively believes the worst about the opposing side. In that respect, this was a monumental failure.

However, failure depends on missing the target. While I don't think the mainstream media in general has a consistent strategy, I suspect there is to some degree an instinctive or even calculated strategy at work. I suspect many radical activists think it's a worthwhile risk. Success builds on success. Winning short-term victories creates political momentum, upping the odds of winning in the long-term. 

In that respect, I don't think the media failed, because it was aiming for something else. The "Russia collusion" hoax may well have put a low ceiling on Trump's job performance ratings. And it may have contributed to Democrat gains in the 2018 midterms. 

That doesn't mean the strategy can't backfire. We'll see. But my immediate point is that I think many rightwing pundits are  overlooking the real game plan. Mind you, it's still a good idea for them to hammer away at how this discredits the mainstream media. 

Responding to domestic terrorism

Predictably, progressives are exploiting the NZ mosque massacre as a pretext to score political points about "Islamophobia", "racism", "hate," and gun control. For instance: 

@liamyoung

I see the mass murder of 49 innocent people at their place of worship is not being called a terrorist attack by a host of mainstream outlets. They’re also asking how this sort of crime can be stopped. About time they took some responsibility for peddling hate and misinformation.

Islamophobia is not just tolerated, it is actually encouraged by many. It has, disgracefully, become an acceptable form of racism and hate. Solidarity to my Muslim brothers and sisters today. And all my strength to those who have lost those that they love #Christchurch

A few quick observations:

i) I don't mind calling the attack an act of domestic terrorism. I don't shy away from the word "terrorism" in this situation. 

ii) From a Christian perspective, we should practice friendship evangelism with Muslims. 

iii) Liam Young is one of many dupes who turns a blind eye to the obvious. Is he equally incensed by Muslim atrocities? For instance: 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270677/germany-muslim-migrant-beheads-baby-robert-spencer

iv) The primary threat to Muslims comes from fellow Muslims. 

v) Notice that when Muslims are attacked by some angry, alienated loner, that's immediately connected to rightwing ideology, but the mainstream media never connects Muslim atrocities to the theology of Islam. 

The Sovietization of the American Political-Media Establishment

A bit dated, but more germane than ever, and broadly applicable to the current behavior of the liberal establishment:

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-sovietization-of-the-american-political-media-establishment/

Fake news

I didn't follow the Jussie Smollett story closely. My awareness of the story was confined to evolving headlines and Twitter. 

Why does the "news" media keep falling for stories like this?

i) The liberal media are bigots, and bigotry is self-reinforcing. They associate with like-minded people. They stereotype Christians, conservatives, and Trump supporters. Men.  White men. Straight men. They think they already know everything they need to know about us. We're the enemy. So they instantly believe the worst. 

Conversely, they are  predisposed to throw their support behind the social mascots du jour. He's black and gay. 

ii) They don't learn from their mistakes in part because this was never about reporting what actually happened. That's boring. Instead, liberal journalists wish to be agents of change. They don't care about the facts if the facts get in the way. Their cause is so just that it warrants winning by whatever means necessary. The noble lie. "News" and "fact-checkers" are camouflage for crafting narratives that further their social agenda. 

iii) And they don't learn from their mistakes in part because it's a tactic or strategem. Throw everything you've got to up the odds that something will stick. They're prepared to miss 9 times out of 10 so long as they get the occasional hit. They hope it has a cumulative effect. People are more likely to remember the first report than subsequent retractions. That's what sticks in their mind. 

Their mistakes would only be mistakes if they were aiming for the truth. But that was never the target. They don't learn from their mistakes because these aren't mistakes. Rather, it's a reflection of their political strategy and tactics. So they will keep on doing it.

Mind you, this does erode what little credibility they have. But that's a risk they're prepared to take because they think short-term rather than long-term. Success builds on success. Winning in the short term empowers the winners, upping the odds of a winning streak. 

Stolen valor

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/stolen-valor-native-american-activist-nathan-phillips-lied-that-he-was-a-vietnam-vet-in-facebook-video

Distrust the media

Lots of stories about the Covington schoolboys. Here's one good breakdown: 

https://stream.org/throwing-covingtons-prolife-boys-to-the-crocodiles/

A few quick observations:

i) Minimally, whenever the liberal media does a sensational story on the Trump administration or hate crimes, &c., we should suspend judgment and wait for more information to come in. Actually, that's too generous. My standing presumption is that the liberal media is totally untrustworthy. Automatically discount what the liberal media says unless and until that receives confirmation. 

Ironically, this story was right on the heels of the bogus Buzzfeed story about Trump suborning perjury.

ii) The kids were also denounced by Catholic spokesmen. For instance:

Catholic school students at the #MarchforLife attempt to shame and disrespect a man at the #IndigenousPeoplesMarch. These actions are not Catholic, not Christian and not acceptable. Would that these students fully understood the dignity of all human life--including this man's. https://t.co/bzqauPjPts

— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) January 19, 2019

I'm so deeply appalled and disgusted by the racist, shameful, disrespectful behavior of the Catholic high school students wearing MAGA hats and harassing a Native American elder and Vietnam Vet. I'm so angry and yet not at all surprised at pervasive white supremacy exhibited 1/2

— Daniel P. Horan, OFM (@DanHoranOFM) January 19, 2019

Just one of many reasons I find the so-called "march for life" often repulsive and futile: It's basically a gathering for many right-wing anti-abortion hardliners (not consistent ethic of life, i.e. true pro-lifers) and teens to get a free trip to goof off (at best) in DC. 2/2

— Daniel P. Horan, OFM (@DanHoranOFM) January 19, 2019

iii) Some conservative pundits also joined the social media lynch mob:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-school-protestors-apologies/

Why would some conservatives suffer from the same hair-trigger reaction? I think the explanation is that some conservatives are too defensive about the pop cultural reputation of conservatives, and so they're just itching for a chance to redeem themselves in the eyes of the pop culture. But that's a fool's errand.

iv) This story parallels Rathergate, where it was the grassroots rather than "professional journalists" who debunked the false narrative. 

Fowl play

In case anyone had any remaining doubts, Trump is demonstrably guilty of obstructing justice. Trump just pardoned the Thanksgiving turkey. 

Presidential pardons can be abused to buy the silence of potential accusers. The turkey was a potential witness in the Russian collusion investigation. Mueller indicted the turkey to put the squeeze on the ill-fated fowl. Nothing loosens the tongue of a gallinaceous witness for the prosecution like the prospect of winding up on a dinner platter. Anonymous informants at the DOJ tell me that the stressed-out Galliforme was on the verge of turning state's evidence against Trump when he pardoned it, thereby robbing Mueller of his star witness. 

The White House press corps

I'm struck by the fact that David French and Ben Shapiro are siding with CNN over the Acosta kerfuffle. They act like Trump violated Acosta's Constitutional rights. 

This is concerning because it goes to the issue of judicial philosophy. Conservatives typically champion strict constructionism rather than a living Constitution. 

A president can't shut down the press. The press has a right to report on the Executive branch. Has the right to investigate the Executive branch. 

However, there's no Constitutional right to have a White House press corps. There's no Constitutional right for journalists to be stationed at the White House. There's no Constitutional mandate that a president hold press conferences. Or have a press secretary. Those are traditions that developed long after the Constitution was ratified.

There's no Constitutional mandate that a president call upon a particular reporter. There's no Constitutional mandate that a particular reporter from a particular news outlet have access to the White House. Those are traditions that developed long after the Constitution was ratified.

Banning a reporter from the White House grounds isn't a criminal penalty. The only folks who are really entitled to be on White House grounds are White House employees. 

It's disturbing when David French and Ben Shapiro hail the ruling of a judge in favor of Acosta. That's the kind of judicial overreach that conservatives are supposed to oppose. Inventing Constitutional rights that have no basis in the text, logic, or history of the Constitution. Their antipathy towards Trump is skewing their judgment. 

BTW, I've never seen the point of the White House press corps. The press secretary will defend whatever the current policy happens to be, whether the policy is logical, illogical, factual, or demonstrably false. It's a vacuous, predictable game in which reporters pose argumentative questions while the press secretary gives evasive, disingenuous, scripted answers. This is equally true for Democrat or Republic administrations. It's not a productive way to elicit useful information.  

It's party time!

For what it's worth, a few more thoughts on the Kavanaugh imbroglio:

1. I think Ford's story is generically credible in the sense that things like that happen at drinking parties with teenagers or college students. It falls right in line a painfully familiar narrative.

Of course, that doesn't make it true–or even presumptively true. Indeed, because the narrative is so familiar, it's easy to fabricate. 

2. On the face of it, there are holes in her story. As Ben Shapiro notes:

Why Do Her Therapist’s Notes Conflict With Her Account? 

Ford showed her therapist’s notes to The Washington Post. Those notes conflict with her account. The notes don’t include names, instead stating that the alleged perpetrators were “from an elitist boys’ school,” and had since become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes also state that four boys were involved, not two; she says her therapist got it wrong, and that there were four boys at the party but only two boys involved. Another therapy session the following year includes the charge that Ford underwent a “rape attempt” in “her late teens,” but she was allegedly 15 – not late teens – when this incident occurred. Her husband, who was present for the first therapy session, said Kavanaugh’s name was raised, but the Post account doesn’t say that Kavanaugh was called the alleged perpetrator.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/35935/6-questions-about-sexual-assault-allegations-ben-shapiro

Judicial poker

What purpose is served by confirmation hearings? Until the 20C, we didn't even have public hearings for Supreme Court nominees. Ever since Bork, they've degenerated into a cat-and-mouse game where nominees giving evasive answers to tripwire questions. An opportunity for senators to indulge in flamboyant moral grandstanding for the cameras. 

Confirmation hearings ferret out whether the nominee is a good poker player. Does the nominee have a good game face. Can they bluff their way through the process. Are they smooth dissemblers. 

Mafia loansharks

I’ve become super convicted about the large-scale ills of Facebook and Google.

I fully realize that a major reason the Bee (and my webcomic, for that matter) was able to blow up like it did was because of social media — Facebook in particular. This is just how it goes when you make things for the internet: you create, you post to social media, you hope people like it and it spreads. But the power that Facebook held over me as a content creator began to make me very uneasy.

True crime fascinates me, and this is a comparison that often comes to mind: to become a successful content creator you have to use Facebook, and using Facebook, especially if you’re a Christian and/or a conservative, is sort of like going to a mafia loan shark for $10,000. They’re happy to give it to you, just like Facebook will gladly give you the opportunity for your content to go viral on their massive platform. But then, if it does, they own you. You have to conform to their rules and their worldview, and jump through every hoop they put in front of you, if you want to remain a successful content creator. It’s just like a loan from a local mob guy: sure, now you’ve got $10,000 in your hand, but you’re going to pay a high price in return. You’re going to have to alter whatever needs to be altered — even your worldview — to accommodate Facebook. If you miss a payment or step out of line, you’re going to get a beating. And if they ever decide you’re too much trouble, they’ll just shoot you. Facebook has the power to kill publishers, and they do, not only based on publishing techniques, but based on worldview. Just think about that.

This takes us into the bigger and scarier picture, which is that Facebook and Google have a practical duopoly on information. The web is where everyone gets information about everything, and they literally control what information the world sees. I could write a million words on this topic, but I won’t. I cover it regularly on CDR, and the CDR Manifesto speaks on it. Suffice it to say, my worldview combined with my job description gives me a unique vantage point from which to view the current state of things. As a follower of Christ, I am primarily concerned with glorifying God, loving my neighbor, and spreading the gospel. I’ve thought about this deeply and carefully, and I think the centralization of the internet is one of the greatest threats to the spread of the gospel, and the well-being of mankind, that we face today. Maybe the single biggest threat. It is tyranny over information. It’s a handful of people who are hostile to the Christian message and the plight of the individual deciding what’s good and bad, true and false. It’s never been seen before on this scale. I am no conspiracy theorist; never have been. From where I sit, this danger is as clear as day.

All of this is to say nothing about the long-term ramifications of the massive collection of personal data, or the incalculable intrapersonal effects social media is having on us.

Because of all of this, I have founded the Christian Daily Reporter to be a daily source of news and information that lives outside the centralized tech-giant choke-hold, and I am in the process of becoming something of a conscientious objector to Facebook and Google (I’m sure I’ll have more updates on this process in the future). I have come to a place where I no longer feel morally OK being a part of the Facebook and Google machine, and because of their surveillance-capitalism business models, just existing on their platforms makes me a paying customer. How does CDR grow without social media? Not sure; I’m just focusing on making it so good that people want to come back every day.

(By the way, if you follow the news and have seen what’s been happening with Facebook and Google in the months since I launched CDR, hoo boy, you can imagine how justified I am feeling these days.)

http://adam4d.com/i-sold-the-babylon-bee-and-am-no-longer-running-it/

Fake news

One of the challenges facing Christian voters is how the mainstream "news" media decides to single out and hype a particular "story". Stock examples include hate crimes, sex scandals, and police shootings.

You then have pundits and outfits that accuse evangelical voters of racism, hypocrisy, homophobia, transphobia &c. because they don't jump on the bandwagon. But that raises two basic issues:

i) Does a Christian voter have a duty to become an instant expert on every controversy du jour? Are we obligated to chase down every rabbit trail the "news" media points us to? 

We're allowed to have our own priorities in terms of what's important to us and where to invest our time. 

ii) It's becoming increasingly difficult to get both sides of the story when information gatekeepers like Google censure searches that undercut the liberal narrative. There's a concerted effort to suppress one side of the story. 

As a result, some libertarian/conservative voters now automatically discount whatever the media says as fake news. And there's a lot of justification for that reaction. You can't rely on "news" outlets that have squandered their credibility to advance a social agenda. 

Headline news

Where do I get my news? Because so much news is so ephemeral, in my daily consumption I skim. Often I don't get much beyond the headlines. I just want to keep on top of current developments rather than in-depth analysis since the situation is so fluid. During the campaign season, I'm more likely to get into the weeds. 

Ben Shapiro

https://www.facebook.com/Ben-Shapiro-203805062990264/

Shapiro keeps me up to speed on what's happening now. And he's a corrective to liberal bias. As an Orthodox Jew, he covers culture war issues.

I don't generally read Daily Wire articles due to the irritating popup ads. 

Jay Wesley Richards

https://www.facebook.com/jay.w.richards

Useful for culture war stuff. 

In addition, useful for monitoring the state of the Catholic church. Richards is an evangelical revert to Rome, but critical of Francis and the state of Catholicism under his watch.

Ross Douthat

https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT

Often has incisive news analysis. Sometimes highlights useful articles.

As a conservative convert to Rome, Douthat is critical of Francis and documents the capitulation of the the magisterium to political correctness.

NRO

http://www.nationalreview.com/

A mixed bag. Some of the better contributors include Charles Cooke, David French, Victor Hanson, Kevin Johnson, Andrew McCarthy, Ramesh Ponnuru, Ed Whelan. 

Robert Gagnon

https://www.facebook.com/robert.a.gagnon.56

Good on culture war stuff, especially the LGBT agenda.

Michael Barone

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/michael-barone?page=2

Useful for putting current events in historical perspective. Detailed knowledge of demographics and American political history. 

Human Exceptionalism

http://www.nationalreview.com/author/wesley-j-smith

Good resource on alarming developments in medical ethics, both nationally and internationally.

In the Light of the Law

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/

An erudite critic of the Francis papacy

The Volokh Conspiracy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/

Sometimes useful for legal analysis. Not a site I read on a regular basis. 

The Ravi imbroglio

Some off-the-cuff impressions of the Ravi imbroglio. 

From what I've read, he's probably guilty of resume inflation. The whole tradition of honorary doctorates is a scam. 

As for the alleged sex scandal, I haven't seen enough details to have an informed opinion on that. And it really doesn't interest me. I'm not responsible for his conduct. It's not my problem. I'm not donor to his ministry.

He's not a lawmaker or public policymaker. So it's not incumbent on me to conduct the kind of examination I might in the case of, say, a presidential candidate. Unless we have a good reason to investigate claims like this, it's like reading a salacious gossip column. 

There are Christian institutions that do have that responsibility. 

It's sad. Because he from the Third World, Ravi can reach people-groups that a white evangelist/apologist can't. They're more receptive to the message from him.

I haven't read much of his stuff. He's a popularizer rather than a great thinker or scholar. I generally read people I hope to learn something from. That's not Ravi. 

In terms of cultural apologetics, Os Guinness is probably more erudite. 

Ravi's out-of-court settlement is counterproductive in the sense that it doesn't lay suspicions to rest since, being confidential, outsider observers don't know which side admitted to wrongdoing. 

Out-of-courts settlements are hard to assess. On the one hand, the accuser might fold because they can't back up their allegations, and they risk a defamation suit. On the other hand, the accused might settle to avoid having embarrassing details come out in court. 

It's hard to believe Ravi is quite such a babe-in-the-woods. He's 71. He's a man of the world. He hasn't led a cloistered life.