Tuesday Rant on the Headlines . . .

There are numerous things in the news today that are bothering me, so if you don't mind I am just going to rant a little.

• First, is the uproar over McCain advicer Charlie Black's comments suggesting that if a terrorist attack were to occur between now and the election, it would help John McCain politically. Predictably, this comment has drawn outrage from Barack Obama and strong chastisement from John McCain. But this was absolutely planned by the McCain campaign, this was not a gaffe, this was not a moment of accidental honesty (and it IS honesty) on Charlie Black's part. The McCain and Obama camps know equally that if there were another terrorist attack between now and the election, that it would turn some voters to the more "experienced" candidate in John McCain. McCain has consistently polled a little bit better than Obama on the issue of national security. This is no surprise. The outrage of Obama and the rebuke of McCain was also factored in by the McCain campaign as the "cost of doing business." These were merely transaction costs in an effort to get the issue of a possible terror attack back in the headlines and back into the minds of the American people.
• Next up is the new Don Imus fiasco. I don't listen to Don Imus and I really don't care what he says. That being said, I think it was wrong that he was fired over his Rutgers comments. The comments were, if not plainly, then really close to the line of plainly, racist. They were inexcusable. But, I was under the impression that, in this country, you were allowed to express repugnant thoughts. He even apologized, which okay, maybe you don't want to take him at his word, but he DID apologize and he has paid a price for his comments, a price that was, in my mind, too high. Now, there are new suggestions of Don Imus' racism based on comments he made about the reputed NFL thug, Pacman Jones, being black. Okay, sure there is a whiff of racism when he says that he wasn't surprised to hear that Jones was black. And, it strikes me as a little disingenuous when he starts backpedaling and saying that he said he wasn't surprised because he was suggesting that the cops pick on black people. He then went on to say that the cops arrested Pacman 6 times because they were picking on him because he was black. And Al Sharpton says he hopes Imus means it. 1) Who cares what Al Sharpton hopes or thinks or says more than any other person? (How is it that treating one or two men as the spokesmen for black America is not more perjorative, demeaning and racist than what Imus spews?) 2) Pacman Jones is a thug and he has been arrested so many times because he has behaved in a way that was, shall we say, below reproach? I am not naive enough to suggest that somewhere along the line, his being black, played NO role, but I am suggesting it was not a predominant role. 3) Don Imus is what he is. If you think he is racist, then so be it. Treat him like the ignorant individual you believe him to be and don't listen to him and don't report on him. You ARE allowed to be publicly wrong, racist and ignorant in this country. But, in the words of someone wise, who, quite honestly I forget, the answer to repugnant or "bad" speech is not to shut the speaker down; the answer is MORE speech, by MORE people.
• In the most "gag-me" campaign news I have ever heard, the report came out today that Obama and Hillary will make their first campaign stop together in Unity, New Hampshire, a town where they split the primary 107-107. I am quite sure that there are some people out there who think this is "neato," "cute" or "endearing." I happen to think this is absolutely obnoxious. Instead of cynically pandering to the naive and stupid, those seeking a sign, or a charming anecdote, as this clearly does, why doesn't the Obama campaign make Hillary join him in someplace where he actually needs her, like Florida, or perhaps maybe West Virginia where Hillary trounced him by 41% in a state Democrats CAN win? This is just stupid and only appeals to wild-eyed mush-brains.
• Finally, Focus on the Family's James Dobson is taking on Obama over his interpretation of scripture. Dobson says of Obama, "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said. "... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter." Well said James, and perhaps you are right. But isn't that the point Obama was trying to make? That you can in fact take scripture and twist it to fit your own worldview or "confused theology?" Wasn't this Obama's point and isn't this what you have been doing for years? The idea that the Bible speaks out both (or multiple) sides of its "mouth" is neither new, nor surprising, but it underlines a basic point: USING the Bible to ones political advantage is astoundingly moronic. OF COURSE, you can find a scripture passage that "backs up" or "supports" your belief/opinion, but, for the most part, these provisions are contradicted or made ridiculous elsewhere in the Bible (both Old and New Testament) by another passage. This last point was made with typical poignancy in this clip from "The West Wing."