Hannity

I don't watch much T.V. but a couple nights ago I saw that a show called Hannity was on so I decided to give it a shot. I have to say it was just about the most appalling thing I've ever seen on T.V. The logic and thought process were atrocious. I know I wrote a similar blog a couple days back about Russell Pearce but this is a thought that's been developing in my little brain over the last few days so I wanted to give it another go.

Let's say that there is a complicated situation with one hundred people offering ideas and only one of them has a workable solution. Now lets say that these one hundred people start having debates with each other to try and create a following for their ideas. I think this is what was happening between Hannity and the guest that he had on his show the other night. It seems reasonable to me to think that while watching a political debate there is a good chance that neither person will have a workable solution to the issue that they are discussing. However, any time two people debate a topic there is a good chance one is going to appear more reasonable than the other. I think it is very important not to confuse 'He looks more reasonable than his opponent' with 'He has a workable solution to an issue.'

While watching Hannity it was very obvious that the political opponent that was invited to speak on his show had weak arguments. He was easily made to look foolish and, I suppose rightfully so, soundly defeated in the short "debate" (If you want to call it that. It was more like a one sided attack). Hannity then proceeds to push his own agenda without a smidgen of critical analysis. The logic seemed to be that since he defeated the leftist guest in a "debate", he must be correct. That is what I found so atrocious about the show. Without any reflection on his own ideas he carefully tries to lead the viewer into confusing, 'He looks more reasonable than his opponent' with 'He has a workable solution.' That's dangerous.

I'm admittedly a layman when it comes to this kind of thing. In the words of C.S. Lewis, I'm not trying to understand, I'm trying to misunderstand a little less completely. I don't know what the answers are but I know that we aren't going to find them if we focus all of our energy into tearing down the ideas of others instead of developing good ideas of our own. Be careful what you come to believe when you watch T.V. There is a lot of bad philosophy out there and it can't be made into something good by proving that it's better than something worse.

Acknowledging the monster behind you.

Have you ever heard the old nursery rhyme about the old lady that swallowed the frog to catch the fly and then a mouse to catch the frog and then a cat to catch the mouse and on and on? The old lady died... of course. I think there is more wisdom in that little nursery rhyme than meets the eye. I think the moral is that sometimes it's better to live with a problem if the only solutions are going to cause other problems that are more severe.

Try to apply that logic to Arizona's immigration problem for a minute. The AZ Legislature recently elected Russell Pearce to be the AZ Senate President and along with that comes a slew of anti-immigration legislation. Russell Pearce is so focused on solving the problem of undocumented immigration in front of him that he fails to see all the problems that his solutions are creating behind him in the wake of unintended consequences. We've already seen instances of violence between communities and the police department. We've seen local economies suffer because residents left in mass numbers to move to other states. And it looks as if the situation is only going to get worse. Recently, there was a bill introduced that would force hospitals to check the legal status of persons who receive emergency care and turn them over to federal authorities after their visit. I don't really feel like going into detail about the negative affects of this legislation because they are so obvious but if you'd like to read another blog that I think is an accurate prediction of what will ensue you can read it here - http://thepragmaticprogressive.org/wp/2011/02/10/a-whole-new-kind-of-death-panel/. 

The point I'd like to make is that I think it's very important to think critically about the motives of people who have a victim complex. Russell Pearce has a victim complex when it comes to undocumented immigrants. And rightfully so, I'm pretty sure he was shot once and had another run in that had something to do with drunk driving. (I might be wrong on the details but the point is that he has had bad experiences involving undocumented immigrants). People who view themselves as victims never feel like they need to be critical of their positions because they think they have a right to vengeance. In a way I can understand why Russell Pearce feels the way he does but I also think that we as a society need to think about the monsters behind his philosophy as he focuses all of his energy trying to rid the state of undocumented immigrants instead of critically examining the effects of his actions. Reason being that if we let him keep swallowing cats to catch mice, Arizona is going to end up like the old lady.

Egypt

Today I read that the protests in Egypt were successful in their attempt to force the resignation of their authoritarian president of 30 years. I feel like this is very good news to me even though I am not personally connected to the situation and do not even know anyone who is. It is inspiring to me because it is an example of real change. Not just a politician who says the word change and then either chooses not to change anything or doesn't have the ability to change anything but actual real change from the grassroots level. It really demonstrated the power of the people. I was having a conversation with my brother-in-law a few days ago and he mentioned how the social contract between the people and the government is what allows a government to stay in power. As soon as that social contract is broken the government has no control whether they remain "in charge" or not. On the peoples end, breaking that contract takes a lot of courage because if it fails to break completely they leave themselves open to continuing abuses from those in power. I am inspired by the courage it took for the people of Egypt to stand up to an authoritarian rule and collectively say, "We will not follow you any more. Our social contract is broken. You are not our leader whether the law says you are or not or whether you stay or not. We are free!"

That is inspiring!

Book Report - The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne

I just finished this book yesterday and had mixed thoughts about it. I like Shane Claiborne but I don't always agree with his opinions. I felt like he was really good at diagnosing problems but his solutions seemed to lack substance. He would hit the nail on the head when he would talk about how the church is apathetic and numb but then his solution would be an idealistic form of communism. If Christians just woke up and decided to share everything the world would be a better place. Sure, but if everyone on welfare decided to stop collecting government checks and actually organize and start businesses the world would be a better place too. I'm not actually proposing the latter as a plan, I'm just saying that talking about unrealistic goals is just that, unrealistic.

In the book he went on and on about Gods heart for the poor, the early church and how Jesus lived his life. I agree with all of that but I don't see how the book is emulating Jesus. Jesus said to do your good deeds in secret, not write a book about every good deed you ever did. Also, I don't understand how you can grasp the concept of the Gospel being good news for the poor and then go and write a book to an audience of rich people. The book isn't good news for the poor. You can look at the cover which is made to look like cardboard and duck tape and see that it's not something the poor are going to be excited about. The already have cardboard and duck tape. The book is good news for the rich because it frees them from money and a boring life of comfort. But good news for the poor? I'm not so sure.

I like Claiborne for his passion and recognition of a broken world that needs something new. But I wouldn't be surprised if this book was nothing more than an attempt by a man struggling with pride to make a name for himself. It's supposed to be an irresistible revolution but it was written 5 or so years ago and I hadn't heard about it till now. Must be pretty resistible. It doesn't seem to have gained a huge following. At the end of the book there is a three page list of "communities" that he says are part of the irresistible "revolution." It's almost like he's taking credit for them but when you look closer you can see that they aren't anything new. The CCDA is listed and my church is a member of that and has been since before the book was ever published. Willow Creek Community Church is listed and in the book Shane describes this as being a mega-church that took all the crosses out and had American flags all over the place to be "seeker-sensitive." That can hardly be considered part of his "revolution" but he lists all these organizations and makes it look like he's started something unstoppable when I really don't think he's had much impact.

Anyway, although I had disagreements, I think I still enjoyed this book and benefited from it. I came away from it with a better understanding of some of the problems we face in the world and also more of a will to take up the cause of the poor and the needy even though it probably wont be in line with what Shane suggests.