The Rise of "Bimbo Journalism"

In this post, I need to clarify what exactly I am NOT referring to in the purposely derisive term "bimbo."  I am not attacking female journalists, even though I could make a case of the poor exercise of journalistic practice by the present trend of female reporters who ride the skirt hems of Barbara Walters without the same high standards of presenting the news.  Nor am I directly criticizing the Hollywood versions of story presentation as found in Access Hollywood or Entertainment Tonight, though we are getting closer to the central issue.  Nor is it the similarity of styles between the journalist of ET and the Today Show the core issue, though we may start saying "You're getting hotter," rather than "You are getting warmer."

The key issue could be encapsulated in a remark of a female anchor who appealed to "our sister network."  I heard this snippet and quickly thought, can I envision Walter Cronkite saying "our sister network"?  The whole piece of imaginative thought sounded awkward, almost horrific.

This is what I mean by "bimbo journalism," the presentation of news information through the strictures of a given entity, allowing the narrowness of that entity to determine news content, news emphasis, and agenda manipulation of what is "fit to print" or to "hear with ear."  This stiffling of real journalistic practice can be demonstrated by several instances:

1)  In the Ferguson, MO race riots, the presentation of Michael Brown as "gentle giant" leads to the suppression of Brown's ruffian behavior in a convenience store just prior to his shooting, or incidents from high school classmates that hinted he used his size and strength to bully others.  They present the shot patterns of the victim as proof of excessive force, but omit to tell the audience of the common police practice of discharging pistols with rapid fire over against single shot.  All this to actentuate the problem of race relations.

2) The excessive reporting on the novel Shades of Gray, pushing it to best-seller status.  While other news programming other than the Today Show mentioned the downside of aggressive brutal sexuality, the NBC enterprise avoided such reporting.  The publisher of the novel is part of the "sister network."

3) The flack about the scandal in the Duggar family led to reprisals which led TLC to end the airing of the show's 19 Kids and Counting reruns.  While severing of corporate sponsors is highlighted, supporters of the family are not mentioned.  Any interviews of members of the family are spun against them.  This is done despite the case against the eldest Duggar son being resolved and its contents sealed, and the unsealing perhaps done by an activist judge at the behest of a 19 Kids competitor.

4) The present situation centered on Donald Trump's remarks about illegal Mexican immigrants.  While flamboyant, the remarks are accurate, and the recent murder in San Francisco by an illegal has been suppressed as a "random incident."  The bimbo journalist now tries to resolve the apparent rise of popularity of Trump and reduces it to an ingrained racism which draws us back to incidents as mentioned in the first case.

In short, bimbo journalism seeks to reduce all of important news as aspects of sociological developments towards an overly idealized version of America, a utopian foundation for progressive themes.  It decries racist, and builds a case.  It decries sexism, and builds a case.  Vigilance is demanded of the audience to fight against the cultural flows that would reverse such themes of social progress.

Which is why I debated whether this form of journalistic practice of tailoring news items to express the utopian progressive mission should be called "bimbo journalism" or "vigilante journalism."     I opted for the idea of newscasters prostituting the practice towards an agenda, a selling of journalism to achieve the desired results of "big media."

The age of information is fast becoming the age of propaganda.

Ten Inane Remarks of Pres. Obama

With due apologies to practically no one, I am able to resolve my password issues and have resume control of my blog site. Alot of ideas have been percolating in the brain-box, so I will have fun in draining it dry.  Here goes IMHO number one.

I must credit President Obama for his articulate style in presenting his agenda for America.  While I do not agree with many of his positions, he is the duly elected head-of-state and has every right to advance his plans.  The only point is the glibness of his expression, sometimes reduced to memorable zingers which merit further thought -- and rejection on principle.  The curse of the one who coins the phrase must own up to the counterfeit product such snapshots of thought tend to trivialize (yes, I know I am mixing a metaphor terribly -- a demonstration of this very premise).  We tend to confuse brilliance of expression for brilliance of thought.

No possible connection, period.

This is my list of the ten most ridiculous sayings of our honored president which may or may not need commentary.  My ramblimgs will follow Mr. Obama's.

1.  A teachable moment.  The episode of the white policeman and the black college professor which resulted in the beers at the White House peace treaty.  This would be the first of many issues of racist propaganda pieces risen over a policeman's honest visit to investigate disturbances in the neighborhood.  It is one more example of killing the messenger.

2. Treyvon Martin was like a son to me.  In an effort to bring some sense to an unfortunate incident, the first in a series of unfortunate incidents the President didn't need or deserve,  It was in support of the individual whose trial of his killer was a failed ploy for justice.  While the self-defense defense was valid, the President came down on the side of one, beginning a polarizing of the country which Mr. Obama didn't need or deserve.

3.  "JV squad"  The inflammatory insult of the Islamic radical element did what we hoped would never happen:  the JV squad proved they transcended varsity capabilty.  Obviously professional grade.  This brings us to ...

4.  It's not my pay grade.  The ultimate expression of "I can't do that," or "I'm not responsible for it."

5.  You can keep your doctor // your plan.  The worst lie (or, to be gracious, miscalculation) that was uttered in support of the Affordable Care Plan, which in the end was neither care or affordable.  Enforced insurance was just an act.

6.  Grow the economy from the middle.  I never understood why this line from the 2012 debates was not examined.  In a capitalist tradition, how is this done?  It was a denial of the "trickle down economics" criticized by the left during the Reagan administration.  Which worked, leading to an economic recovery that was faster than the Obama version.  Even now such a recovery is weak if jobs and labor issues are not resolved.

7.  Lead from behind.  Worst foreign policy philosophy ever.  The Arab Spring initiative has been a colossal flop due to lack of American leadership at the front.  Connected to this point is the related maxim Boots on the Ground.  It is a cover for much of the cowardly tactics of diplomacy.

8.  Hope and Change.  In one sense, Obama has effected the greatest ideological change in the country's history.  But it was an unequal yoke.  We hope for change for the better, but have no voice in determining the contents of the change.  This has led to the general dissatisfaction in the American Spirit. This also leads to that bizarre political slogan ...

9.  "D" is for drive.  "R" is for reverse.  A pundit for the progressive ideal, it is entirely illogical.  A car is made to move forward and backward in specific situations, like to drive up to the scenic overlook and then to withdraw from it.  The happen-chance that the names of the two political parties, Obama's own "D"emocratic Party and the reviled "R"epublican is an exercise in creative thinking, but is not at all substantial.

10.  I have a pen and a phone.  The president's response to the 2014 elections in which the Democratic Party lost a terrific amount of congressional seats and influence.  In a moment were the president could see as a review and rebuke of his policies, his pledge of pushing through his agenda via executive mandate was the highpoint of imperial audacity.  A wiser and a humbler man would have reached other conclusions.

Honorable Mention:  The science is settled.  In support of climate change, the president made claims on science that are not scientific.  Science, in its strictest sense, is never "settled."  All scientific findings are open to examination, evaluation, review, critique, and above all, skepticism.  Only an idolized version of science (we call it "scientism") could make such a blatant claim as "settled."  But that is not science.

This has been a relief to resume control of my blog site.   Now, barring governmental backlash (please, this remains America, where dissent can still be loyal), I hope to have the next post up soon.

The Deficit of the Problem of Evil Argument

The crux of the problem of evil is tenuous.  It remarks on the omnipotence and omnicsience of God.  If all-wise, He could create conditions to an ideal world.  If all-powerful, He could put an end of evil.  The existence of evil proves an unreality to the qualities of omniscience and omnipotence, therefore the unreality of God.

The argument fails on the ultimate origins of evil.

In the beginning God created heavens and earth, in His time, at His command.  The final results were perfect paradise.

In the beginning, the perfect creation was populated by those who could appreciate the wonders of perfection, sensible, sentient, willful creatures of material and immaterial realms.  Willful to be impressed with it all, or not so.

In the beginning, the devil corrupted the realm with a simple temptation, one that has been reduplicated in many varieties:  You shall be as God.

Thus, in the beginning, man, as this pseudo-deity, created in this perfect realm suffering, misery, and all sorts of conditions permitting sadness unexpressible.

Thus the atheists' Problem of Evil is viable only in one respect, the reality of evil, an evil that mysteriously disappears once God is dismissed and mankind is placed on its pseudo-divine pedestal.  But evil is easily proved.  Read your newspaper.  Observe how you manage your speed and stoppages in your time behind the wheel.  The evil is apparent, even if the origins of it are hushed up like some state secret.

God is omniscient.  Scriptures speak of His resolution of this rebellion through the atonement of the Gospel, beloved news to all save those who imagine their own deity.  God is omnipotent, but doesn't use it in the eradication of the pseudo-gods.  That is reserved for a day ahead.

Till then, we may embrace evil as a human construct, honed to perfection by humanitarian goals and dreams quite utopean and quixotic.  Paradise imagined but never grasped.  Or else, we can abandon this destiny through a truly divine grace that is beyond the imaginations of humanity.  Christian consciousness has understood the way of life and the way of death, the wide and narrow roads.  It is opportune to travel the better road.

"Gay," Marriage, and Equality

Two arguments fuel the debate in the eyes of those who support gay marriage.

1) The accredited hatred of those who oppose progressive marriage mandates.
2) The concept of "marriage equality."

The first premise is quickly being lost due to the widening disparages of intolerance against those who disagree with the LGBT community, evident by firings from positions, cancelling of shows promoting Christian (N.B. not religious) values or input.

The second premise shall be lost if issue is made of the concept of equality between hetero and homosexual unions.  This is now being resolved by the methodology of premise one, with the enlightening awareness that hypocritical tolerance features the acceptance of one view and appropriate measures allotted to the opposing views.

But the facet of equality is forced, and collapses on examination.  One form begets children naturally, the other by fabrication of theft (the spirit of adoption is now a birthright to same sex unions, while abortion advocates accuse the heteros of never adopting enough).  The perception of one union moves in only so far as the effect of camaraderie, without descent of understanding "what goes on in the bedroom."  SSM wishes to have the benefits of marriage, while the hetero-unions never conceives of marrying for the benefits.  Love conquers all, money need not be applied.

The idea of such equality is cosmetic at best.  This reduces the idea of examining a 3 and an 8, noting a similarity of shape (the "three" just lacking connection on its left edge), and concluding that 3=8.  In this case 3=8=E=H, or anything that mere appearance would allow.

Thus, "marriage equality" is an equality that is qualified, not quantified.  It is an unreal equality.  Much has been made on the definition of marriage as expanding.  The evolution of marriage is. however, an alteration of convenience against the best ideas.  It is marriage redefined by its detractors, the previous advocates of easy divorce, multiple marriages, unions based on self-gratification broken when the charms are lacking.  It is much the same of people who, desiring to do something with baseball, seek silly rule changes.  All to liven up the game.  The integrity of a game with established rules seems an oddity.  But to alter it ruins the integrity.

And, in the spirit of the invocation of equality (without investigating what is fundamental to "equality"), we are losing the integrity of marriage.   It is no wonder that SSM fail at a rate of 17 times those of heteros.  Two generations ago, "till death do we part" led to many golden anniversaries.  Today, they are miraculous, which is why such happen often enough in the Christian community.

The Theoretical "War on Women"

A bizarre occurrence in the NFL flap.  With the expulsion of Ray Rice from the Baltimore Ravens, a triumph was declared for the feminist version of justice, where domestic violence is a travesty to be eliminated at full cost.  Then, in the first home game in Baltimore, a set o women supported Mr. Rice by the wearing of his jersey.  The life-long (aka "indefinite") suspension is rightly being contested.  But the epic battle of the advancement of the feminist ideal has provoked a type of unexpected backlash.

The women wearing the offending jerseys were duly passed off as "duped," but they are representative of a cultural under-current of dismissing the general trends of recent feminist thought.  In a recent episode of Today, notice was made of the group of women who insisted that feminism did not define them, and that this vision of womanhood, not given to notions of patriarchalism, still valued maleness to a degree that feminism was inadequate as a universal principle.  It short, they could conceive of women as women, as men as men, not subject to demasculating tendencies.  The female journalists were quick to point out that feminism had assured all women of fairer treatment and better opportunities.

Which was, technically true, but an irritating avoidance of the true issue.  The great gains that were achieved in the 1970's were not the issue under attack, but the expansion of culture as decisively female in orientation.  Not the 1980's victory, but the 2010's irrationalism.

The issue is the decadence of feminism to a degree of its own variation of sexism.  The journalist who praises the achievements of the female contigient of the 2010 Olympics to the snubbing of the male participants.  The erotic displays of entertainment as the standard of female performance, with the understanding that male reactions to such displays are to be neutral.  To the vapid notion that certain political parties are anti-women because they don't embrace the new feminist vision and could offer critique of the barrenness of the position.

The feminist is fast moving to an arrogance of deserving the terminology of "female chauvinist sow."  Their disdain of the "duped" members of the group may lead to the next phase of the theoretical "War on Women," by making it a civil war.

If such a conflict leads to a clearing of the air on the vision(s) of what woman must be, then it would be most welcome.

The Moral Argument and the Defeat of Evil

The Moral Argument posits a deity as the foundation of morality, in light of tenets of morality being undesirable in certain cases (sexual mores, the acceptance of pedophilia, rape, abortion).  Acknowledging the necessity of moral character, the atheist counters along two lines 1) the unscrupulous character of God, particularly in the Old Testament, and 2) the problem of evil.  Evil occurs, and God, who as omnipotent and loving, should be capable of containing and eliminating evil.  God's failure to do this means His non-existence.  Morality is thus a human construct, viable to variation in light of cultural change.

However, a divine foundation of ethics is still desirable.  If not, no moral dictum has staying power beyond a rational (or even rationalizing) basis.  And reason has its means to enact genocide, if reason is found.  Thus there is a friction, a working morality sans God.  If morality fails, man is capable of plenty of travesty in the realm of naturalism.  The very fact that in some species the female devours the male has no moral impact.  But it could be the structure of immorality.

The original title of this post would have been "The Moral Argument and the Problem Defeat of Evil."  If evil is merely cited to disavow God, then have no basis for reality thereafter, we have the basic inconsistency.  The belief in God instills a component of evil, hence the "love God/good and hate evil" expressions in Scripture (Ps. 97: 10; Prov. 8: 13; Amos 5: 15).  Evil then must be seen as not as the failure of God, but the failure of men.  Our skewed ideas of the makeup of evil runs counter to the Lord's views on the nature of evil.  We despise the fact that God has us well pegged as "evil," and that some of our favorite pastimes are at core unsavory.

Evil is not to be card to wave to make anti-God claims.  It must be faced and fought.  We have passed from an era of poetic justice (good shall always overcome evil) to an embrace of evil (how many times the villainous are the heroic in Hollywood renderings of motion pictures).  We both embrace violence (in depiction in R and TVMA ratings) and eschew it.  In using the problem of evil as a cause of dispelling God, we are left with the problem called evil, and no foreseeable means of dispelling that.

Evil remains something to defeat, not to flout.

On the Nature of God's Wrath

I have recently read Tony Lane's essay The Wrath of God as an Aspect of the Love of God.  It treats a difficult issue that has afflicted the post-modern sense of Christianity as it deals with totally secularized views of God.  The world has extreme difficulty in seeing a compatibility between a loving God and a God who allows evil, which is seen as a manifestation of God's wrath.  This is not a difficulty perceived just now.  It is a concept that has intrigued the best theological minds of the Church.  The earliest schisms of the second century can be traced to this matter.

Lane recognizes four incorrect notions dealing with God's anger:

1.  Simple denial of the ira Dei.
2.  A disassociation between the God of the Old Testament and Jesus the Son of God in the New.  This was the basis of Marcion's heretical sect in the second century, who culled away much of the New Testament proto-canon (favoring the Lucan and  Pauline portions over against the material submitted by apostles of Judean background).
3.  Viewing the ira Dei as an anthropomorphic (or, better, anthropopathic) expression.  God's wrath is not equivalent to raw human emotions.  While it may begin a correct understanding of divine anger (it is not to be seen as volatile or out-of-control), it often degenerates into a cause-effect response to violating natural law, an elevation of law having built-in consequences.  But this reduces divine indignation to something along the lines of karma.
4. Acknowledging the truth of divine wrath, but minimizing its expression in the teachings of Church.

In treating the wrath of God, Lane notes a long tradition of viewing God's wrath as an attribute to God's love.  A jealous God is what the Lord portrays Himself.  The secularist trend is to see this as a belittling emotional comparison.  Lane disagrees:   Failure to hate evil implies a deficiency in love. C. E. B. Cranfield illustrates this with a well-chosen modern example. He asks whether God could be the good and loving God if he did not react to human evil with wrath. “For indignation against wickedness is surely an essential element of human goodness in a world in which moral evil is always present. A man who knows, for example, about the injustice and cruelty of apartheid and is not angry at such wickedness cannot be a thoroughly good man; for his lack of wrath means a failure to care for his fellow man, a failure to love.”  Moreover, critics who disdain the jealousy of God work from a deficient notion of love that is centered in self-gratification which moves on to new centers of affection when the emotive power of eros wanes.  If you do not truly, deeply love, jealousy is impossible.

God's wrath is perfect in itself when it is viewed as transcendent above raw human sentimentality.  It becomes the proper response to evil and wickedness, in all forms they may assume.  This is the touchstone of the whole issue.  Once mankind recognizes that its main obsession is not so much love as a sense for debauchery, the issue of divine wrath is vindicated.  A soft sell is not the solution.  If a lion is ever seen in your backyard, it would never do to ignore it.