If Fox News hosts mocked inner-city Democrats as uneducated and ignorant, Don Lemon and the rest at CNN (along with the “woke” online Left and the rest of the legacy news media) would have a fit. “Racist! Bigoted!” But it is perfectly OK for CNN to mock Trump voters, pretending they are all ignorant hicks. They used a fake Southern accent, of course, because the big city legacy media despises Southern whites.
Of course, CNN ignores that Trump got a large share of college-educated voters. Trump actually won a majority of white voters with a college degree, though Clinton won voters with a college degree overall. CNN’s mocking of all Trump voters as uneducated rubes is fake news in addition to hypocrisy.
How can I be guilty of “fatal hypocrisy” for a policy position I not only do not hold, but actively oppose? Obviously, that is impossible, but you would be surprised how many times I am accused of “hypocrisy” for a stand I take because a majority of my fellow Republicans and/or conservatives hold a different position. (I have some views that diverge from a significant number of conservatives and/or Republicans, usually when I take a more libertarian stance.)
For example, I was falsely accused of “fatal hypocrisy” in a May 2002 letter to the editor. I had written a letter opposing funding for Planned Parenthood, and I was a “hypocrite” because of efforts to give vouchers to private Christian schools or to give government grants to “faith based” charities. Of course, the charge was false, because I oppose both of those things and have opposed them for decades.
Regarding the debates over the so-called “gift of singleness,” we should not be overly strict about language, but we should strive to speak Biblically. More important than language, though, is that our doctrine is Biblical.
If a Christian is talking about the “gift of singleness” in a way that means the single person is sexually pure and can serve the church, then I do not think it is helpful to quibble over the language used. Perhaps we could encourage people to use “celibacy” instead and endeavor to use that word ourselves, but having an argument over which word to use is a distraction amid a serious cultural crisis that Christendom (all denominations, all churches, and certainly parachurch organizations) have utterly failed to address. Continue reading
Monday — More thoughts on the “Gift of Singleness”
Tuesday — The Fallacy of Division in political arguments:
Wednesday — Hatred of Trump leads to supporting Trump’s arguments:
Friday — Mittens votes to convict
A friend of mine got “ratioed” on Twitter for stating an obvious truth: Men should be wise when considering marrying a single mother. Why is she single? As of Wednesday morning, he has nearly 11,000 replies (almost all negative) 818 retweets and 5000 “likes” on the post. In addition to the usual rabble, a number of “blue check” users showed up to scold him and attack his faith.
Two words describe a lot of Michael’s detractors: Not teachable.
I am dealing with a flood of hate comments again, from a user banned years ago.
So this is how it is going to be. You are going to stop commenting. If I see another comment from you, I will close comments.
As always, my posts are shared on the Facebook page and comments are open there.
I do not agree with everything National Review says about impeachment in this editorial, but they are mostly right. As the NR editors explain, that is certainly a more defensible position than Donald Trump’s stubborn insistence that there was nothing wrong with his call. Trump’s call with Ukraine’s president was nowhere near perfect. The President’s ham-fisted diplomacy It was awkward, unprofessional and unwise, but it was not an impeachable offense.
But this writer at The Federalist does not agree. John Daniel Davidson argues:
But to counsel GOP senators to engage this sort of argument as a political strategy against a Democratic Party marching in lock-step for impeachment is deeply naïve.
See, the thing is that both Davidson and National Review are right, but they are coming at it from entirely different perspectives. Continue reading
The radical Left has never gotten over the rise and popularity of Rush Limbaugh, and they want to use the federal government to deny consumer choice. We see this again with a column in the Washington Post The problem is they are fighting a 25 year old battle, and their old solutions cannot apply to the modern era of news and information distribution.
The legal theory behind the so-called “fairness doctrine” that the government owns the airwaves. I television and radio are going to use the “public airwaves” then the state has an interest in ensuring that this would not be “abused” to provide a one-sided viewpoint. But that is simply not how most people get their news these days. Continue reading
From my Twitter page:
Sex trafficking is real. It exists. It is evil.
But it does not help sex trafficking victims to spread panic about adult women being kidnapped in broad daylight in a public place.
Two things can be true at once.
Muslim terrorists kidnap women and force them into rape slavery. Teenage runaways are groomed and then sex trafficked.
But in these United States, there are not roving gangs of sex traffickers kidnapping adult women in public places. Children are not being kidnapped in front of their parents in public places and sex trafficked. It does not help real victims of sex trafficking to be spreading paranoia about something that does not exist.
Internet companies like Google who have worked with law enforcement to fight sex trafficking and help victims should not be smeared and defamed for their positions on public policy and free speech.
There is not one shred of inconsistency in my blog post this morning with what I have written in the past on this issue. None.
A news story hit my social media feed a couple weeks ago, stirring fear about sex trafficking. However, it is highly unlikely that the story was real. Are there any actual, documented cases of adults being kidnapped in public places and sold into sex slavery?
This is similar to other news stories of parents fearing that their children would be kidnapped, but Lenore Skenazy points out that the head of the Crimes Against Children Research Center told her that he has not seen a single case “of children being snatched from their parents in public places and trafficked.”