Defining Our Terms: Untruth

With the presidential cycle upon us, it is becoming painfully clear that we need to sit everyone down and explain language to them. This means YOU if you watch FoxNews, MSNBC, read Reddit, or basically any other political blog. Remember, this simple truth:

NOT EVERY NON-TRUTH IS A LIE.

Before calling someone a "liar", "blatant liar", or "stinking liar", consider these definitions:

Lie: Speaking an untruth while knowing it to be untrue, with an intention to deceive. (ex. "Jimmy broke the vase, but lied and claimed that Donny did it, hoping to avoid punishment.)

Mistake: Speaking an untruth, because you do not know it to be untrue. (ex. "The Bush administration was mistaken in claiming there were WMDs in Iraq.")

Pander: Speaking with the intent to flatter or reinforce the beliefs of an audience, without special focus on precision. (ex. "President Obama pandered to the Democratic audience by saying that George W. Bush was the worst president in history.")

Argue/Debate: Making a point in an attempt to convince the other side, or defend your own position. This may include data which is not fully accepted by both sides. (ex. "Mitt Romney cited the Rasmussem report in his argument for lower taxes, but critics dismiss the study as flawed.")

Blather/Bloviate: Speaking without thinking - often while tired and distracted - which may lead to pandering, argument, and mistakes. (ex. "After his 10 day whirlwind tour, John McCain wearily blathered on, at one point claiming Senator Obama was born in Kenya.")

Thank you. Please be more careful in your rhetoric. You may now return to your regularly scheduled election season.

Will Cain-Gingrich debates remind us of Lincoln-Douglas?

Political debates have steadily devolved over the decades from critical discussions of important issues into soundbite showcases, where candidates struggle to belt out pithy one-liners in hopes they'll make it onto the evening news. This frustrates candidates - who feel their nuanced positions are reduced to slogans - and it frustrates voters - who feel like they're not voting for a candidate, but for a bumper sticker. So, it is exciting to see two of the major Republican candidates experimenting with a different style. Calling back to the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates which solidified Abraham Lincoln as the leader of the anti-slavery movement in the Republican party.

The long-form format of the Cain-Gingrich debate will consist of only three or four basic questions, a moderator who will try to stay out of the picture and a great deal of crossdiscussion.

The debate will focus on federal entitlement spending — on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Gingrich will be specifically required to defend his criticism — later retracted — of U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to reduce a $14 trillion deficit.

Cain will be required to explain the intricacies of his “9-9-9” plan — a measure that includes a 9 percent corporate tax rate, a 9 percent personal income tax rate and a 9 percent national sales tax.

Will this work? Will it cause the fortunes of these two men to rise or fall? I have no idea. In modern America, we sometimes expect our candidates to be shrink-wrapped perfection. But it is a bold and interesting experiment, and if it can raise the tone and incrase the depth of the current cycle, I am all for it.

Data points on Gay vs Straight

The debate over homosexual marriage is full of stereotypes and assumptions on both sides. While I do not support the legalization of homosexual marriage, I understand the desire for recognition and "normalization" of this lifestyle by those in that community. It is refreshing to see one site attempting to use their data to bring us new insights on the debate. Clearly, the writer had a pro-gay-marriage axe to grind, but that does not mean that the data gathered is not worth considering. One of the keys to being a moderate is listening to both sides of the debate, and making your own choices.

Obviously, click this link with caution. This is a family-friendly blog, and some of the content there may be disturbing to those with a sensitive disposition.

Star Wars Controversy

Star Wars is no stranger to debate and controversy. Fans love the films and are willing to argue about the tiniest details of the films, books, and mythology. And George Lucas's desire to constantly fiddle with the films to bring them closer to his own vision has only made the controversies more intense.

But, CELEBRATION V may have kicked over the hornet's nest in a new series of interviews with Gary Kurtz. Kurtz directed the most beloved of the Star Wars films - THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK - and left the films during the early stages of RETURN OF THE JEDI. He has remained silent over the details for decades. But he has finally broken his silence.

“We had an outline and George changed everything in it," Kurtz said. “Instead of bittersweet and poignant he wanted a euphoric ending with everybody happy. The original idea was that they would recover [the kidnapped] Han Solo in the early part of the story and that he would then die in the middle part of the film in a raid on an Imperial base. George then decided he didn’t want any of the principals killed. By that time there were really big toy sales and that was a reason.”

The discussed ending of the film that Kurtz favored presented the rebel forces in tatters, Leia grappling with her new duties as queen and Luke walking off alone “like Clint Eastwood in the spaghetti westerns,” as Kurtz put it.

Kurtz said that ending would have been a more emotionally nuanced finale to an epic adventure than the forest celebration of the Ewoks that essentially ended the trilogy with a teddy bear luau.

This new story vindicates conspiracy theorists who have speculated for years that Kurtz had a "better" story in mind for the film than the final version produced. And this ending sounds a lot more satisfying to the adults that most fans are today. Although, I can't help wondering if the children who first watched JEDI would have agreed.

Third Party Debate Tonight

Unfortunately, nothing that has happened in the last few weeks has changed my decision to vote for a third party in this election. If you are still interested in exploring the beliefs and approaches of the third party candidates, consider tuning into the third-party-candidate debate tonight on CSpan at 9 PM EST. We usually tune into these third-party debates, and they are always interesting, as they provide a view into a side of politics that we rarely see on the major networks. Even if you are already committed to a major candidate, consider tuning in as an educational exercise.

Want To Watch The Debate? Watch It Here On Mod-Blog!

Or you can watch it directly on Hulu in a separate window here.

Church of England apologizes to Charles Darwin

The Creation/Evolution debate continues to be a Hot War in America, and there are many who feel that Christianity and Evolutionary Theory are fundamentally incompatible. But it appears the Church of England no longer sees any problem here, and is offering a formal apology to Charles Darwin for the Church's overreaction.

The apology, which has been written by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the Church's director of mission and public affairs, says that Christians, in their response to Darwin's theory of natural selection, repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileo's astronomy in the 17th century.
"The statement will read: Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends."

I have been of the opinion for some time that the Creation/Evolution Debate is, at best, counter-productive most of the time.

Clinton/Obama Debate: 2 Moments

Honestly, I missed the Obama/Clinton debate last night because... well... I was tired and went to bed early. But reading the post-debate analysis, it seems to come down to two moments. The first was when Hillary tried to go after Obama again for the "plagiarism" charge (which is funny considering how much of her political life is "borrowed" from her husband) and the crowd booed her loudly...



And then at the end, Mrs. Clinton made it clear that she would NOT try to overturn the decision of the voters through Superdelegates, if she loses Texas and/or Ohio. This is a huge concession from a woman who formerly was obviously considering pulling out EVERY gun to defeat the young upstart. (I tried to find it on YouTube, but was unable.)

The pundits are pretty much united in their reactions. Hillary won this debate and improved her image, but did not change the tone or course of the campaign and probably lost the nomination tonight. We shall see.

What do our Mod-Blog readers think? Did Obama win it all tonight? Did Clinton turn things around? Will we see any significant changes in the polls or the campaigns?

Random Thought

If the race is down to McCain vs Huckabee, and Huckabee appears to be ready to accept a VP position in a McCain cabinet, will we see any more Republican debates? Or will the only real debate left be between Hillary and Obama?

Did anyone watch the Fox News debate?

I started off watching the FoxNews debate on Sunday (flipping back and forth with the Simpsons) but after a while got tired of it and just went to bed. I did not feel like anything new was being said, since the last debate was only 24 hours old. I have been scanning the headlines this morning, and it seems like NO ONE is reporting on it. Did anyone watch last night's debate?

Immediate reaction to Dem side of the ABC Debate

Edwards and Richardson did very well in this debate, but mostly because no one was gunning for them. Obama did not hurt himself. Clinton obviously doesn't understand why she lost Iowa, and feels all she has to do is knock down Obama to come back. Ironically, John Edwards thinks all he has to do is knock HER down in order to become the front-runner. Neither understands that every person who decides NOT to vote for either of them is going to Obama right now.

Overall, I do not think the race will change significantly after tonight.

Republican Debate

I did not get to see the CNN/YouTube debate, but I did read the transcript and watched some of the question videos. If nothing else, you should check out the GOP Debate Song for a chuckle. All-in-all it was a pretty good debate. There was some avoidance of questions, but it was nice to hear some straightforward and direct answers as well. I'm not sure who I'll vote for, but it reaffirmed good feelings about Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson. The biggest surprise was that I found myself being OK with John McCain getting the nomination based on his responses tonight.

The Republican Trade Debate

I have to be honest. I missed the debate entirely. I was working, and had no idea that the debate was on from 4 PM to 6 PM EST. I arrived home just in time for CRChair to tease me about my timing. Oh, well. But I liked this moment quoted in one blog.

Romney: "These debates are a little like Law and Order. It has a huge cast. The series seems to go on forever. And Fred Thompson shows up at the end."

Thompson: "And to think, I was going to be the best actor on the stage."

Consensus seems to be that no one embarrassed themselves, but no one distinguished themselves either. And that no matter what the voters think, Romney and Guiliani have decided they are the two to watch.

ONLY ON MOD-BLOG: Death Penalty Debate

I think the Death Penalty debate going on in the comments of the "is it a Deterret" posting is one of the most interesting and respectful ones we have had in a while here on Mod-Blog. Rather than leaving it buried in comments, I thought I'd bring it out as a posting. It really shows that while sometimes Mod-Bloggers seem one-sided, we are a fairly diverse community. Feel free to add your two cents in the comments to this thread as well. After all, I doubt Ward will let me have the last word on this.

(Disclosure: I did make a few tweaks to my comments to reflect what I was thinking but did not make it into the original posting. Feel free to make fun of me for that.)

WACKO! said...

I've struggled with my beliefs over the death penalty topic...unfortunately, it has yet to be settled for me.
Wacko!

NICK said...

I think it is biblical as a punishment for the most serious crimes (taking life).

As for being a detterent... doesn't matter, but it is interesting. I always thought that it must be one... if you knew (know) that if you killed someone you would die... pretty big deterent I think.

The major problem we have now is that if someone does end up getting the death penalty, they end up sitting on death row for years. Without the fear of immenent death, the detterent effect is mitigated.

Now, I know, there have been mistakes. In certain cases it is pretty open and shut though.

SEAN said...

I struggle with the death penalty as a punishment. If we are truly pro-life, then killing someone - no matter what they have or haven't done - doesn't seem consistent to me. I know there are some biblical warrants for it, but they all seem to be pre-Christ - hence pre-grace. I tend to be against it, no matter how it's framed. 'Thou shall not kill' doesn't have any loopholes to me.


NOMAD said...

My opinion is that Pro-Life is a positive way of phrasing "Anti-Abortion" and not a general philosophy for many. Too many want to make it seem like a hypocritical move to both support the Death Penalty and be against Abortion. But being against the taking of innocent life, and being for the taking the life of a person proven guilty of taking the life of another is NOT inconsistent.

That being said, it is not inconsistent either to be purely "Pro-Life" in the sense of "always looking to preserve life and never take it." But one must wonder if someone who is purely "Pro-Life" can support War in any case, since it almost always requires the taking of at least some lives.


NICK responded...

Annanias and Saphira lied about giving all of their money to the church, and they both died immediately.

So, apparently there are some instances where God still calls for a death post-Christ. Combine it with Romans 12 (all authorities are established by God to punish and protect) and I think you have an argument.

Also, even in the OT, it says "thou shalt not kill" but then later on (in what could be called an elaboration on the 10 overarching principles) it calls for the community to stone people for various crimes. So I would argue there are loopholes.


SEAN responded...

with Annanias and Sapharia, God did the killing which is distinctly different from humans doing the killing. Also, you have to look at what they did - lie to the Holy Spirit, which is also distinctly different from anything else. So, the Acts 5 case is moot because in every instance it's different from the death penalty being doled out by humans.

Yes in Romans 12 God says that authorities are established by God, but the question is whether or not those authorities should be killing someone. Just because God established them, doesn't mean they're going to act Godly.

While it does talk about people being stoned in the OT there are no instances in the post-incarnation portion of the scriptures that point to killing someone as a good or proper option.

This brings us back to Nomad's argument that there is a difference between killing an innocent and killing a murderer. I'd argue there's not. If killing people is wrong, then why is killing someone as punishment right. Because they've done something we view as the ultimate crime against humanity, that gives us the right to do the same thing to them. It's a viscous cycle. Purposefully killing someone is wrong, no matter how you look at it. Because we all have a reason to punish someone for some tragic thing they've done. Heck that's the reason behind much of the Islamic terrorism in the world, to punish the non-Islamic world for their sins against Islam. We in the west think this is wrong, but in many cases they're doing the same thing in punishing us as we are to murderers in principle.

And yes, I do have an issue with war. I think that in some cases it is a necessary evil, but should be avoided if at all possible.


QUIZWEDGE responded...

"If killing people is wrong, then why is killing someone as punishment right."

What if we change the words?

If spanking your child for no reason is wrong, then why is spanking your child when they do wrong okay? (Hoping this doesn't spark a "should you spank your child debate". This was just the best example I could think of at the time. Feel free to insert your own action that is wrong, but okay as punishment.)


NOMAD responded...

The "rights" argument falls apart almost immediately. If the most fundamental right is "Life", then the second most fundamental must be the "Right to Self Defense". And if you have right to defend your own life, that right must extend to the killing of another to preseve your right. And extending that right to the Society at large is essentially the argument for the Death Penalty.

I do not think the Biblical model is a strong argument, simply because every society we see pictured in the Bible - including those set up by God - allow Capital Punishment and even require it for extreme offenses. And the "grace" modelled by Christ is largely a personal and God-centered affair. It is never extended to governance or the secular state.

But the "vicious cycle" argument - that a society that tolerates the killing of the guilty makes it morally easier to kill the innocent - is one that bears consideration. That being said. I am not sure the case has been made effectively by anyone I have heard. Michael Moore made essentially this argument (or at least asked the question) in Bowling for Columbine when comparing the USA to Canada. The USA has far more murders and violent crimes per capita, even when you take gun ownership into account which is hardly rare in our neighbor to the north.


WARD responded...

"And the "grace" modelled by Christ is largely a personal and God-centered affair. It is never extended to governance or the secular state."

I don't know if there is anything that you and I consistently butt heads over more than this, lol. If what Christ did was supposed to change us as 'personal' beings, then how could it not logically extend to goverance and the state?

But either way, life is life. I am opposed to taking it in any context. Sometimes people have to do what they 'have to do' but I don't beleive that necessity removes us from the blame that we must own as our own if we take a life. If someone intrudes into my house late at night with intent to harm my family, of course I will defend my family with necessary force. But that does not, in any way, free me from the ramifications of my actions. Sin is sin, rather intentional or unintentional and rather of free will or under duress. Situational ethics have no place in the Christian life.


NOMAD responded...

[[If what Christ did was supposed to change us as 'personal' beings, then how could it not logically extend to goverance and the state?]]

Simply because the needs of the individual and the needs of the state ARE NOT COMPARABLE. If I compel you to pay me at the point of a gun, it is stealing even if I am meeting a real need of my own. If the State compels me at the point of a gun, that is taxation and NOT stealing. Likewise, Christ came TO SAVE THE LOST, not to save the governmental structures of all. They are not the same thing.

That is not to say that my faith should not influence my view of government - especially in a democratic form like we have. It should. But quite simply what is wrong for me is not necesarily wrong for the State. And vice versa.

Look at the OT. God dealt with individuals on one level, and the Nation of Israel on another. Both were capable of sin, but not always of the SAME sins. 

[[But either way, life is life. I am opposed to taking it in any context.]]

Again, as I said for Sean, I respect that position, though I do not hold it myself. I can see Biblical evidence for it, though I also see evidence for the Capital Punishment view.

[[Sin is sin, rather intentional or unintentional and rather of free will or under duress. Situational ethics have no place in the Christian life.]]

With all due respect for your superior educational accomplishment (and Sean's), this is wrong. At least as you have stated it. Consider Christ's example:

Jesus answered them, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."
Luke 6:3,4

Eating the bread was UNLAWFUL. But God accepted it in this case, because the situation demanded it. It is not that ethics is relative, but that we have competing Laws here (ceremonial law vs natural law of survival) and one won out.

Quick Impressions of the GOP Debate

I only caught the last half hour of the townhall part of the debate last night, so I hardly got a balanced view of the debate. But from the little I watched, last night's big winner was Rudy Guilianai. He was relaxed, he was focussed, and he made sure he got across every message he had to say last night. Mitt Romney and John McCain on the other hand came across as disconnected and even unprepared at moments.

My other impression was that the Republicans learned from watching the Dem debate, and ignored Wolf Blitzer's attempts to cut them off. They talked right through his attempts to stop them, which probably lead to a more balanced debate than the Democratic one was.

Did anyone catch the whole thing and have a more balanced view?

How balanced was CNN's moderator?

I found this very interesting. The Chris Dodd campaign put out a graph showing how much talk time each candidate at the debate on Sunday. The most was Barack Obama with 16 minutes, and the least was Mike Gravel with a little over 5 minutes. Hmmm... Not so balanced.

My Impressions of the Democratic Debate

I came into the broadcast a bit late, but did manage to catch the Democratic debate last night. My impressions? We can now start to see the real contest begin to gel as competitors vie for an air of credibility in front of the country. John Edwards was the big "winner" of the night in terms of attempting to change his image. He was aggressive and seemed unafraid up there. His tone of self-righteousness became a bit much by the end, but he seemed much less like an also-ran this time around. Obama and Clinton were unchanged by last night. Both came across as tired of debating with such a large crowd, but able to hold their own in every exchange. Bill Richardson came across as a somewhat smarm politician desperate to remind the electorate that he existed. And both Gravel and Kucinich seemed mostly peeved at being left at the fringes of the discussion in a both a literal and figurative sense. Every throwaway question was given to them, and the CNN cameras seemed to make every effort to accentuate their isolation from the mainstream of the debate. Dodd was the only man who looked MORE presidential and credible walking out of the debate, often looking like the only adult amongst a group of squabbling teenagers.

Overall, I do not think the debate did much for anyone. Edwards may come out of this a stronger candidate, and Dodd may come out of it more credible. But overall, CNN seemed more interested in cementing existing impressions than giving us anything new to talk about.

First impression of the Republican Candidates Debate

CRChair again induced me to watch portions of the Presidental Candiate Debate. I did NOT see the whole thing, so I may well have missed some key points. But one thing was clear from the start to the finish: there were only two men on stage who were presidential. Neither was John McCain who looked like a harried grandfather hopped up on too much coffee. The two presidential images on stage were those of Rudolph Guiliani and Mitt Romney. No one else had the confidence, the command, and the unflappable demeanor demanded of a modern president.

My prediction is that John McCain's run essentially ended tonight, and that unless Fred Thompson decides to run the two poles of the GOP primary will be Rudy and Mitt. All the rest will quickly fall by the wayside. Cultural conservatives will lean towards Romney. Economic and law-and-order conservatives will lean toward Rudy. And no, I do not know if either can win in the general election. But then, I do not know if anyone on the Democratic stage could win it all either. There is still room for an independent rising star to steal the stage for either party... or for their own party.

Republicans Take Center Stage

I watched about 1/3 to ½ of the Republican debate on MSNBC last night and recorded it for future viewing. This is my reaction to the parts that I saw.

Mitt Romney was the most presidential person on stage. He easily answered questions and moved the discussion to questions he wanted to answer without making it obvious. Rudy Giuliani seemed unprepared to answer the questions about abortion. You would have thought that he would have decided on how he wanted to explain his views by now knowing that this question would come up. He did alright other than that. John McCain didn’t seem Presidential to me. He is said to be great at speaking “off the cuff”, but all of his answers seemed too planned to play into his strengths. None of the next tier candidates did much to change my opinion of them. I would like to be able to say that Gov. Mike Huckabee did a great job, but he was just fine. I do think that the candidates that said that they support the Fair Tax (National Sales Tax) probably put themselves out of the race. Huckabee is one of the candidates who did this. This election will not be about changing the tax system (as much as some of us would like this to be a major issue.) This election is about Iraq, homeland security and national optimism. The major tax debate of this election cycle will be about making President Bush’s tax cuts permanent and extending the elimination of the “Death Tax” which goes to 0% in 2010 and back to 55% in 2011.

SurveyUSA says Obama won the Democratic Candidates Debate

Vote your own opinion on the Mod-Blog poll, but the early consensus seems to be that Obama won the debate. We watched about half of the debate (Well, I did, CRChair watched about 3/4 of it). I agree that Barack Obama came across well, and definitely presidential, but I do not think he changed any minds. My analysis of Hillary Clinton is that she did not make any missteps, but also did not distinguish herself. As a woman who cultivates the image of being the most qualified person in the country for the job, she just seemed like another candidate on the platform and nothing special. I thought that the big winners for the night in terms of changing minds might be Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich. Dodd came across as capable, presidential, and well-thought-out. Not necesarily the best man for the job, but one that you would be unashamed to represent you on the world stage. Kucinich came across as not quite the fringe wacko that he seemed in the last campaign, and defended his positions well, even if he was significantly to the Left of most Americans. As for the rest, they either seemed overly timid (Richardson) or mildly deranged (Gravel).

What are your thoughts? Did you even bother to see the debate or catch the replays on YouTube or the Evening News?