Remember the Days . . .

. . . when you had to think really hard to come up with concrete examples of media bias? Everyone knew it was there - you could tell from the slant of the stories, the emphasis on certain facts and not others. But when it came right down to it, the smoking gun proved elusive.

That changed over recent years, especially with the 2008 election thanks in part to the chananigans of MSNBC, who eventually replaced two of its pro-Obama commentators because the "reporting" got so bad. It was like listening to a bunch of frat boys from an Ivy League chapter of "Young Democrats." The AP couldn't say it any better: "Olbermann began to have difficulty keeping his opinions in check, or simply stopped trying."

MSNBC is at it again. Just as Gov. Jindal was walking towards the podium to give the Republican response to Pres. Obama's speech, someone from MSNBC muttered on-air the words "Oh, God."
You can hear the resulting laughter from others in the studio. Apparently, the thought of disagreeing with President Obama provokes a measure of disdain and mirth from that particular network. (Or maybe it was a prayer to President Obama asking forgiveness for having to present an alternative viewpoint.)

Comedian on Conan O'Brien - "Everything's Amazing, Nobody's Happy"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoGYx35ypus

Funny stuff.

. . . When the Doves Cry

The group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has been a harsh critic of the Bush administration for just about anything and everything. Well, after the Bush White House failed to install electronic record-keeping for e-mail when switching to a new system, it turned out that millions of messages could not be found. Naturally, CREW assumed a vast-right wing conspiracy afoot and launched a lawsuit, accusing the Bush administration of trying to hide something.

The Bush-led Justice Department thereafter attempted to get the lawsuit dismissed, but when Obama was elected President, hope was renewed for CREW. After all, with left-leaning progressives in control, surely things would be different . . . wouldn't they?

Not on this issue. Turns out that the Justice Department is also trying to get the lawsuit dismissed. Ouch.

But unlike their scathing criticisms of the Bush administration, CREW was much more subdued this go around, merely fretting in mild terms that the Obama administration should do more to "adequately preserve records belonging to the American people." Just a disagreement between gentleman, in other words. How very civil of them.

And for the record, I'm sure many Americans are just chomping at the bit at the thought of being able to wade through hundreds of thousands of mispelled emails from lower level employees asking each other what time the staff meeting is or whether they should go to McDonalds or Burger King for lunch.

We Never Talk Anymore!!

America is a nation of cowards on race. So says Mr. Eric Holder, recently appointed by President Obama to lead our nation's chief law enforcement agency. Attorney General Holder said that we "need to confront our racial past" and "understand our racial present . . . we simply do not talk enough with each other about things racial."

Urging greater interpersonal dialogue is something I might expect from Dr. Phil . . . but the Attorney General of the United States?? Kind of weird. What's next, the head of the Treasury Department calling us a nation of jerks because husbands don't communicate enough with their wives?

If Mr. Cizik had his way . . . ?

Mr. Cizik, formerly of the National Association of Evangelicals, believes that Christians should be more receptive to the idea of giving out contraceptives to avoid unwanted pregnancies, i.e. we should give teenagers birth control. I wonder how many Christian parents will take him up on that? I can only imagine the conversation . . .

(Dad is sitting on the couch watching TV. His daughter comes down the stairs looking all dressed up): So, I hear you’re going out on a date tonight?

Daughter (smiling): Yep. Going out with Brad.

Dad (eyebrow raised): Brad again, huh? This is the fifth time you've gone out with him by my count. Must be serious . . .

Daughter (looking a bit embarrassed): Stop, dad. He's nice, I guess . . .

(Dad gets up and reaches into his wallet): Well, I’ve been meaning to give you this and now is as good a time as any. Here you go.

Daughter (drawing back): Dad! What are you, crazy? That's a condom!

Dad: I just want my princess to be safe.

Daughter (mouth agape) Why in the . . . what is mom going to say?

Dad: We talked about it. She’s totally rad with it.

Daughter: Dad, no one says “rad” anymore and, more importantly, you and mom said it’s wrong to have sex outside of marriage.

Dad: Oh, we say lots of things, honey. And don’t be naïve - everybody your age is doing it.

Daughter: I’m not! And what about the Bible? The Bible says . . .

Dad (holding up a hand): Hey, I’m all for the Bible. I’ve learned so much about how the government should care for poor people, that we should protect the environment from global warming, practice tolerance. And your ideals, however dated, are really great. But when you do have sex, at least you’ll be protecting yourself against [he shudders] an unwanted pregnancy. God certainly doesn't want that. So just hang on to this for me, will you?

Daughter: (confused)

(He reaches back into his wallet): Look, even -I- carry a condom when I go on business trips.

Daughter (lip quivering): Why in the world would you do that?!

Dad: Well, your mom and I talked and we decided if temptation came calling, that it would be better for me to protect myself against the risk of HIV. It's just common sense. And we all know that having an affair is pretty much inevitable for married couples these days. Even your mom carries a condom around in her pocketbook.

Daughter (staring blankly):

Dad: Well, I’m glad we had this little talk. I think I hear Brad driving up. Now you two go have fun!!

Saying what you mean, Meaning what you say

This is late coming, but in case you didn’t know, Richard Cizik, Vice President for Governmental Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) is no longer affiliated with the NAE. The NAE is anchored in 60 denominations with about 45,000 churches, representing millions of Evangelicals and Mr. Cizik is a long-time lobbyist and media spokesman on a variety of Evangelical issues. He was selected by TIME magazine in 2007 as one of America’s top 100 thinkers. That being the case, I’m not sure what Mr. Cizik was thinking in December 2008 during his interview on PBS.

On gay marriage: “I’m shifting, I have to admit. In other words I would willingly say I believe in civil unions. I don’t officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition, I don’t think.”

On having the government supply contraceptives to reduce unwanted pregnancies: "I think finding those who are in trouble, in crisis, helping them through this and if need be, even supplying what government presently doesn't do, namely contraception, is an answer to reducing unintended pregnancies.”

The interviewer was notably surprised by this response: "Wait, wait. I think I heard you say government supplying contraception. That's got to be controversial." "Among some it may be," Mr. Cizik replied, "but I don't think so. We are not, as I have said previously, we are not Catholics who oppose contraception per se."

That was Cizik in December 2008. Very (very) shortly thereafter, he “apologized.” His brand new post-PBS stand on gay marriage and civil unions? "I categorically oppose 'gay marriage' and see now that my thoughts about 'civil unions' were misunderstood and misplaced. I am now and always have been committed to work to pass laws that protect and foster family life, and to work against government attempts to interfere with the integrity of the family, including same-sex 'marriage' and civil unions."

Talk about an about-face. That’s almost like invasion of the body-snatchers. I mean, did he suffer from some momentary bout of peer pressure while appearing on PBS and say what he thought might sound hip and retro to the interviewer, only to realize when he got back to the office that it really wasn't too cool with the vast majority of Evangelicals?

Of course not, but I think I would have more respect for him if he just stuck to his guns, even though I disagree with his positions. Or former positions.

Great Moments in Animation

Superman vs. Captain Marvel in "The Clash."

Justice League Unlimited, Season One, Episode 20.

He's baaaaaack!

Cal Thomas is at it again, predicting the end of religious conservatism, decrying those who put too much faith in politics and power . . . blah blah blah, you know the rest.

I wonder - just who are these misguided Christians who have been so hoplessly ensnared by the lure of absolute power? Name names, please! Inquiring minds want to know. (All I did was vote for McCain. I'm not sure if that counts).

I enjoy Mr. Thomas' columns and his perspective. But the "death of the religious right" thing just plays into the left's morbid fantasies of a public square minus conservative people of faith.

Don't mind Cal too much. He gets a little depressed anytime a Democrat gets elected President. Sounds like a broken record to me. Time for him to upgrade to CDs or something . . .

The Stimulus Plan

"Well, we've got to do something."

I agree. How about being patient and reasonable, carefully considering the problem and coming up with the best solution, as opposed to just doing "something"?

Let's say you're standing in front of your car on the side of the highway, hood open. You don't know much about cars, but you know enough by the clunking sounds, dripping oil, smoke, and strewn parts on the ground that an expert mechanic really needs to check this out, take the time to give it a diagnostic and break out the expensive tools.

But you're going to be late for dinner. You just called your wife and she has steak on the table. Steak! You can't just warm up steak, it's meant to be eaten right now. And she planned this special for you. So instead of waiting for AAA to show up, you start playing around with the timing belt. Before you know it, the car isn't making any sounds now. Why? Because you figured you "had to do something."

"Well, we've got to do something." Never have so many sounded so ridiculous.

The Shack

Haven't read it. Don't plan to. No particular reason, but from what I have gleaned, The Shack just doesn't appeal to me. Amazing success story though, from a publishing point of view.

I have been searching for reviewers of the book. You know, people who actually review a book for its literary content, as opposed to listing the many things that are theologically wrong with it, or how it changed my life and can change yours.

How Can You Defend Someone Who is Guilty?

(Once you sell your soul to the devil, it's actually quite easy.)

I get this question every now and then. Never had a client ask me that, though. Hmmmm.

I think there are two kinds of people who ask that question: those who haven't given it much thought, and the just plain curious. I'm happy to oblige either.

Everyone deserves a defense (the Bill of Rights bears this out), and due process of law goes all the way back to Biblical times:

Deuteronomy 17:6: "On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness."

In other words, even if that scum-bag Azariah is guilty and worthy of capital punishment, he "gets off on a technicality" if Lamech was the only one who saw him do it. Under the law of Moses, Azariah can't be put to death. That's obvious enough. But what if there are two witnesses, and that other guy, Nadab, was rip-roaring drunk at the time? (on grape juice, of course). Or had a motive to lie? Well, the person who first pointed this out was a defense attorney.

The job isn't for everyone. Certainly not. But our civilian and military criminal process, when working as it should (two sides duking it out firmly but fairly under the rules of ethics), will get to the right result much more often than nought. I've worked as a prosecutor, a trial defense attorney and now as an appellate defense attorney for the military. All are great opportunities and interesting work, and each teach valuable lessons on justice, mercy and the human condition.