There’s this old adage that has become even more pertinent in recent years: “If it’s too good to be true, it probably is.” This is due primarily to the countless e-mails circulating the Intertubes promising instant wealth if only you turn over sensitive bank information to some foreign dignitary. However, the same logic should apply to e-mails that contain juicy information and damning info about your least favorite political candidate(s).

But if you ever receive an e-mail claiming that so-and-so is a godless heathen who wants to teach America’s schoolchildren how to participate in gay threesomes, or that they have a history of committing war crimes and want to drown cute baby seals in crude oil—you know, the kind of e-mail that you just can’t wait to send off to your family members and friends (Facebook or otherwise)—there should be a red flag or two popping up in the back of your head.

In light of the most recent round of spurious and specious rumors flying around the political campaign trail, I have a single and simple favor to ask. The next time you receive one those e-mails, spend 10 minutes on Google to check it out. Heck, just head on over to Snopes, and see what they’ve already debunked. For example:

• Barack Obama is a “radical Muslim” who “will not recite the Pledge of Allegiance”
• Barack Obama’s birth certificate contains damaging information about him
• Sarah Palin wanted to ban A Clockwork Orange, A Wrinkle In Time, Huckleberry Fin, and other books from the Wasilla, Alaska public library
• Sarah Palin posed in a U.S. flag bikini while holding a rifle
• John McCain said he was a war criminal on 60 Minutes

Surely there are more legitimate issues, complaints, and criticisms that can (and should) be raised than those that can be debunked with a simple Google search. To harp on the same lies and falsehoods is not just dishonest, it’s lazy and ignorant—and I hope to God we’re better than that.

Via

...I think Andy Whitman has a pretty good idea:

I have a crazy idea: let’s apply the same standards to journalists that they apply to politicians. For every breathless story written about a politician’s foibles, some other journalist gets to write a breathless story, after doing a solid background check and thorough vetting, of that journalist’s past. I know. It will never happen because nobody really cares about what a journalist might have done a quarter century ago. Exactly.

On a related note, I think most people would agree that, while it’s certainly not out of the question, the behavior of one’s child doesn’t automatically reflect, or speak to, the quality of one’s parenting, at least not completely. I know of several people who came from good families with loving parents, and still made mistakes (including the same one that Bristol Palin made). Conversely, there are just as many instances of children who have come from bad families who went on to live good, solid, productive lives. It’s certainly important, but nurture is not the whole story.

And if that’s all the case, then I wonder why so many people—on both sides of the fence—seem to feel that recent revelations say anything of value concerning Palin’s governing abilities. Certainly, there are more legitimate issues that can be raised and debated. Frankly, this whole business of rumors, conspiracies, and conjecture surrounding Palin’s children—and grandchildren, for that matter—merits an even lower circle of hell then its closest degenerate relative, “celebrity journalism”.

I used to think that sports announcers had just about the most worthless job in the world—essentially, all they really do is state the obvious while occasionally tossing out some vaguely interesting bit of trivia that is tenuously connected to the events that just occurred on the field. But while the incessant coverage of the Olympics hasn’t really raised my opinion of that particular profession much (with a few exceptions), I have come to the conclusion that there’s one career choice out there that’s even more pointless and pathetic: television political analyst/commentator/pundit.

Here’s the sad truth: these folks are paid to be little more than whiny little bitches. They’re less interested in actually bringing to bear any insightful commentary on the issues and topics at hand, and are far more interested in twisting and obscuring what is actually said and discussed so as to have better comebacks, putdowns, and zingers to use against the other analysts in the room. In other words, they’re less concerned about the issues and more concerned with how they can one-up each other.

Case in point, Barack Obama and John McCain’s recent appearance on the Saddleback Civil Forum. Pastor Rick Warren interviewed both of the presidential candidates—Obama first, and then McCain—and asked them questions on issues ranging from abortion and war to education and energy. The event itself was admirable and even enjoyable, giving us voters an opportunity to hear the candidates speak for themselves plainly and honestly. In short, it was a very refreshing change from what passes for much of the “conversation” that occurs during presidential campaigns.

And then the analysts and pundits had to go and take a nice, long piss all over it.

For starters, it was obvious, from the get-go, which analysts would go where on the event: one merely needed to discover their “liberal” or “conservative” persuasion. And then there was the blatant twisting of what the candidates said, such as when one Fox News pundit—I didn’t catch the name, they all look and sound alike to me—implied that Obama listed only his wife, grandmother, and Ted Kennedy in response to Warren’s request to name three people he’d go to for advice. Which was a gross simplification of what Obama actually communicated.

And finally, let’s not forget the shrill, annoying tones in which all of this “analysis” took place. It was almost as if the analysts were determined to go against the entire raison d’être of the Forum, which is “to promote civil discourse and the common good of all”, with the emphasis on the word “civil”.

Now, I didn’t sit through all of the analysis. I’m sure that, somewhere, on some channel, someone threw out a thought-provoking and cogent observation. However, when one of MSNBC’s commentators kicked off that channel’s post-Forum discussion by tallying up how many times Obama and McCain each said “God”, “Jesus”, and “Christianity”—almost as if he truly believed keeping score like that told you something valuable about the candidates—I knew I’d only be able to stomach so much commentary of that caliber before throwing up a little in my throat.

I’ve recently come across several blog entries that raise the question, “Can a Christian, in good conscience, vote for Barack Obama?”, with the main reason for the question being Obama’s pro-choice stance.

This is certainly an important issue, especially seeing as how Obama is gaining an increasing amount of support and acclaim from Christian circles. How can Christians, a significant portion of whom see abortion as nothing short of murder, support a presidential candidate who is very open about his pro-choice stance? The implication seems to be that, in some way, Christians who intend to vote for Obama are making a serious moral compromise that others find unconscionable.

This caused some discussion between Renae and I, as we seek to understand the issues more fully and prepare to vote in the coming months. We want to make our vote “count”, and we want to ensure that we are making the most informed decision possible, whatever that decision might be. But as we thought about it, we came to realization that politics, in any form, involves compromise.

While politics, and the actions of political leaders, are certainly informed and shaped by idealistic absolutes that can lead to intense disagreement—e.g., the constant antagonism between conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats—no political process can survive without some measure of give and take. Especially when you’re dealing with democratic system.

Put simply, there is no perfect candidate available, not for any political office, and there never will be. At some point, your candidate of choice will “let you down” by supporting some issue or stance that, for whatever reason, you are opposed to. Or perhaps they’ll have some character flaw or lifestyle choice that will just drive you crazy, and yet you choose to stick by them.

To that end, I wish to pose this question to those folks who are wondering how Christians can compromise in order to vote for Obama: what compromises, moral or otherwise, are you willing to make by voting for McCain (or someone who is not Obama)?

Certainly there are things about McCain with which you disagree, perhaps even vehemently. If you’ll recall, McCain has received flak from conservative pundits and leaders due to his stances on immigration, terrorism, tax cuts, stem cell research, and so on. Or maybe there are things about his personal life that you find worrisome and troubling, but are willing to overlook. What are they, and how or why do you justify overlooking them?

And there’s a flipside to this question: are there aspects of Obama’s campaign that, if looked at honestly, you can appreciate? Or perhaps there are aspects to his character that you respect. If that’s true, what are you willing to compromise or give up by not voting for Obama?

Some conservative folks seem to be getting a little hot under the collar because Pixar’s upcoming Wall-E (trailers) contains a reference to Dubya’s famous “stay the course” line.

As Dirty Harry writes in his 2 1/2 star review:

For all its charms and wonders, one moment sticks in my head and, well, craw. It also confuses me. Why? Why go there? Other than the dark chuckles from the liberal critics around me, what’s to gain? And other than a lack of self-control or hubris on the filmmakers’ part, there’s no explaining it. But they did it. They actually had the President (Fred Willard) say about his failed mission, “Stay the course.”

Have we lost Pixar? Have we lost the wonderful studio who brought us The Incredibles and Ratatouille to Bush Derangement Syndrome? Here you have a winning streak going back ten-years, enormous amounts of public goodwill, equal amounts of credibility as serious storytellers, and they stop things cold, yanking you out of the story with the liberal nonsense.  Quite a disappointment. Anyway…

And then there’s this post on The Conservative Mindcleaner entitled “Will You go See Wall-E Knowing it Makes Fun of Bush?”.

I haven’t seen the movie yet—that’s my big plan for this upcoming weekend—so I can’t speak to how well the line works (or doesn’t). But as one of the commenters over at Looking Closer puts it, this all strikes me as much ado about nothing.

As Dirty Harry points out, Pixar is a studio that has a winning streak going back ten-years, enormous amounts of public goodwill, [and] equal amounts of credibility as serious storytellers. Additionally, you could make a very convincing case that Pixar is one of the few studios out there—Walden Media being the other one that immediately comes to mind—that consistently releases movies that most would consider to be in-line with “traditional family values” (e.g., The Incredibles, Finding Nemo)? Indeed, Pixar is the rare case where “family friendly” isn’t a pejorative or a handicap.

To ignore all of that because of a single line of dialog strikes me as a slight case of overreacting.

All that being said, I found this recent CHUD editorial, entitled “Is Wall-E Environmental Or Hypocritical?”, to be very thought-provoking:

...whether or not Andrew Stanton wants to own up to placing environmental and political messages in a film that includes a robot recreation of a protest riot has nothing to do with whether or not they’re there, but I think everyone seeing the movie this coming weekend will have to admit that these messages exist. And most of those people will have to also admit that they’re good messages, the kind we should be happy are included in a kid’s film.  The problem is that these messages - intentional or not - are being undercut by a cynical marketing campaign that will likely have a bigger impact on kids than the movie itself. And worse than that, it’s a marketing and licensing campaign that will help advance us just a little bit towards the environmental devastation shown in the film.

Frankly, the concerns that Devin Faraci raises strike me as a much bigger cause for alarm than any jab at the President.

I’ll stop linking to Mr. Whitman as soon as he stops writing stuff like this:

I don’t normally get overtly political here, and I promise I won’t do it again for a long time, but I have to say that the developments of the past month or so have left me cautiously optimistic. For the first time in 32 years there appears to be no presidential candidate (who has a chance of winning; sorry, Mike Huckabee) whose policies align closely with the religious right.

...in November I will vote for a candidate who will offer an imperfect solution to complex issues, and who will not be God’s President. And I will rejoice because, for once, and perhaps for all time, the stranglehold has been broken. Maybe, just maybe, we Christians will figure out that looking to any political party to embody God’s will is as much an idolotrous stance as worshipping a golden calf. And maybe, just maybe, we will be willing to serve in the prophetic role to which we have been called; standing apart from political systems, and working toward a social agenda that values loving and serving people—individuals unborn and aged and everywhere in between—as the means by which the Kingdom of God might be advanced.

On a related note, I have to say that I’ve been pretty amused by the various conservative leaders and pundits (e.g., James Dobson, Ann Coulter, etc.) “jumping ship” and saying that they’ll vote for someone else, or—gasp!—vote for a Democrat, should McCain get the Republican bid. I don’t know what they’re ultimately trying to prove or what statement they’re trying to make, but it smacks of desperation and reminds me of an old saying—something about a house being divided against itself.