Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

I have to agree with Andrew Sullivan regarding Sean Hannity:

“It is obscene for Hannity to purloin a sentence from the Lord’s Prayer in order to advance his partisan political views. And yes, it is also obscene to equate terrorism and despotism with liberalism. Hannity isn’t worthy to speak the word “liberalism,” a long and complicated and deeply Western political tradition that is the only reason he can actually publish a book like this and face only criticism.”

This comes right after he blasts Larissa MacFarquhar for her fawning article on Michael Moore in The New Yorker (not available online today).

This is why I like Andrew’s site. He is intellectually honest. No screeching crow.

I listen to the radio on the way home from work each day. On talk radio (the music stations are wall-to-wall commercials) I have the choice of a local conservative who enjoys his own voice, or Sean Hannity. I bounce back and forth to hear what topics they’re discussing that day. On days like today, I turn the radio off.

Hannity is sincere. But he views everything in the extreme. I don’t like extreme. It is far too simplistic. And he locks in on something and refuses to let go. Like “the Dean Scream.” He obviously enjoyed it, and played it every chance he got. The same thing happened after he managed to speak with Ted Kennedy one day, and Teddy reproached him about interrupting. For the next two weeks, he played Kennedy’s “You don’t interrupt me when I’m talking!” every time he found someone who hadn’t heard it, or who had only heard it once or twice. Or three times.

Bill O’Reilly is much the same, except I think he is far more in love with himself than Hannity. O’Reilly will act incensed all of a sudden about something someone says, totally out of a desire to appear tough. It is almost like he’s thinking, “I haven’t acted really pissed in a while, I wonder if this is the right time to do it.” I once wrote to him that he was in danger of becoming the new Geraldo, and he has. ME ME ME ME ME!

At least Rush is generally amusing, although I don’t listen to him, either.

And Democrats want a liberal version of all this?

I guess they give the Right someone who shares their views. I used to pay attention to O’Reilly, but have since quit watching his televised version of National Enquirer. The only show where thoughts are actually discussed is Brit Hume’s. If anyone has found another anywhere that has intelligent discussion rather than argument, let me know! Until then, I’ll stick with bloggers from all sides who have something intelligent to say.

Jews make case versus Mel’s movie

I’m looking forward to the chance to see this movie. I am a big Mel Gibson fan. He’s one of the real people in the movie business. He operates to make a profit, but he also does things from the heart.

“The Passion” is a story all Christians know, as do most others in the Western world. It is a story both horrific and wonderful at the same time.

Since its inception, leaders of Jewish groups have been on pins and needles. They’ve searched high and low for ways to delegitimize he film.

They believe Gibson faults the Jewish high priest Caiaphas rather than the Roman tyrant Pontius Pilate for sending Jesus to his death, and they’re upset Gibson did not cut a line implying Jews are cursed by God.

Outrageous comments by Gibson’s father about Jews and his son’s failure to publicly denounce those remarks have fanned the controversy.

Critics charge the ultra-gory movie could incite anti-Jewish attacks, and some worry that it will undermine decades of Judeo-Christian reconciliation.

“The concern is he has selectively taken the worst possible interpretation of the Passion narrative, which involves blaming Jews for the crime of deicide [killing God], and is transferring that blame to all Jews, including Jews alive today,” [Mark] Weitzman [director of the Task Force Against Hate at the Simon Wiesenthal Center] said.

This is what I dislike about groups. Because the film portrays the high priest as a villain, the Group (embodied by Mr. Weitzman) takes it as an attack on the entire group.

Caiaphas was the direct cause of Jesus’ death. The Jewish priests at the time were concerned about the “progressive” activities of Jesus and his followers. He upset their applecart. Pilate was a vehicle for eliminating this impostor.

People like Weitzman can’t deal with this, and want all Jews to be incensed. Just because they’re Jewish.

What happened 2000 years ago was done by people who lived then. Because they shared the same religion as someone today doesn’t make those living in 2004 responsible. I think it is important for all Christians to see this movie. I also think it would serve us all well to see the intense violence which can be visited on someone in the name of religion or empire. It would be a tribute to 3000+ who died on September 11, 2001.

Update on Mel.

I’ve linked before to John Ray’s monograph, but after reading this, I thought it might be a good idea to do so again.

I guess what irks me about the left is that they look at things in absolute terms, except those things which really should be viewed in perspective. The far right does the same, but what I would prefer to call the far left is really much larger. Hence, virtually everyone on the left becomes the same in my mind. They tolerate no dissent within the ranks. Anyone who doesn’t agree entirely is far-right. They allow for no middle ground.

One example of this is the Fox News Channel. They claim to be “fair and balanced.” I believe they are. They boast some tremendous talent on their payroll, some of whom are liberal, and some who are conservative. Some, like Mort Kondrake, are very balanced in their own right. What Fox News does differently is open real discussion rather than the simple arguing that goes on at other networks between their left and right commentators.

Fox news has first-rate people. Brit Hume, Mara Liasson, Juan Williams come to mind, and two of them are liberals.

Yet liberals slam Fox News as being conservative. It is a matter of perspective. If you view things from the far left, anything in the middle is far right. And this is the issue. The three major networks are all liberal in their views. ABC even admitted this in a memo recently. I don’t think there’s any argument that both CNN and MSNBC are as well. So, for people accustomed to news with a liberal slant, anything without it seems, well, conservative.

Dr. Ray has daily follow-ups on many issues regarding leftism. Today he talks about academia, one area that concerns me and our future. Or, take a look at my archive, or visit Cold Fury for another angle.