NPR: No Perception Required

Strangely, NPR is considered the benchmark for those that want to be viewed as intelligent.  Whether you’re trying to shake off the shackles of your hick upbringing, attempting to validate your trust fund, or just desire to be one of the cool kids then listening to NPR is thought, by some, the most common way to achieve these important goals. 

However, this notion does leave room for doubt.  NPR’s reporters often speak rather slow and deliberate, over-explaining common terms and ideas with medicated, monotone voices that scream esoteric condescension.  At times this manner seems more appropriate for a body of adolescent students as opposed to an adult audience. 

Not only does this effectually question their listeners’ aptitude but it can also spread deceit when a controversial story is presented in this “nuts and bolts” fashion but neglects to present sincere, legitimate opposing information.  All things considered, this is public radio, seen as the radio of record by many--a trusty tax funded community resource, which naturally means it’s good for all.  NPR isn’t subject to commercials and sound bites and profits, which grant them the freedom to give the full story and spread the unvarnished truth--or so it is thought.  In other words, the misperception is that if a private news outlet presents facts in a report that NPR hasn’t mentioned then those details are automatically subject to criticism as mere corporate propaganda.  After all, that information hasn’t been derived from the incontrovertible, “everyman’s” public radio!  Honestly, wouldn’t Stalin delight in such attitudes?    

Furthermore, NPR’s pieces are usually peppered with background noises from where they’re reporting.  For instance, if a story is about people that work at a diner, you’ll inevitably hear dishes being stacked and silverware clinking as it’s thrown into a bus tub.  A cash register drawer can be heard sliding out while everyday patrons produce muffled chatter.  I liken these audio illustrations to pictures you would see in comic books, children’s literature, or perhaps an elementary school textbook.  The expression “do you want me to draw you a picture” comes to mind and this phrase isn’t intended to celebrate achieved understanding. 

So, if these are the formats that pass today as nurturers of intelligence then I must be missing something.  I remember when listening comprehension was mastered without sophomoric representations and over simplistic explanations geared towards a demographic that doesn’t seem to have even a rudimentary, objective knowledge of the world and its history.  In comparison to most other news outlets, NPR is the equivalent of "counting on your fingers".  And in case you’re wondering, that practice is not associated with a high level of intelligence.

           Therefore, it comes as little surprise that during the most recent Gaza War, NPR has successfully enlisted this less than mentally nimble band of wannabe geniuses to support the terrorists and hate the victims.  Nor is it any surprise that during the chaos of Ferguson their sympathies lied with thugs and looters and not law enforcement.  Isn’t it clear to see how this generation, spoon-fed by NPR, masquerading as intelligent, arrives at some of the poorest conclusions possible?  Oh, and aren’t you glad our tax money pays for 10% of that?  

Post-Racial? So, Am I Still White?

....originally printed 7/29/10

What does that mean, anyway—post-racial?  Well, one definition is that a post-racial society is one where race is no longer significant or important.  Some were convinced that President Obama had ushered in this new age.  Here are two reasons why.

The first dealt with Obama winning his party’s presidential nomination.  The big story was how many, supposedly, forward-thinking, white academics and hipsters supported his primary bid.  At a glance, this would seem post-racial—white people voting for a black candidate over a more established white candidate.  Sure.  But a closer look reveals that much of his support from whites wasn’t despite his racial make-up but, at least in part, because of his racial make-up.  This was considered the very essence of his candidacy.  He not only espoused change; he was the very embodiment of change—a black man in the white house.  And many of his white supporters celebrated the notion and backed him because of it.  The irony of it all is that they voted for a candidate based, in part, on race when their goal was to create a post-racial society.  In other words, in an effort to create a society where race is not deemed a significant factor…they made race a significant factor.

The second reason it’s been suggested we live in the color blindness of post racialism is, again, not because race is no longer a factor but precisely because of race—namely, the mixed racial heritage of the president.  I’m sure you’ve heard this notion before:  President Obama is both white and black and, therefore, perfectly suited to heal the country’s racial woes.  This is, of course, ridiculous.  It reminds me of something out of medieval Europe in which two noble families produce the one male heir that will unify the kingdoms at odds.  Not only does one’s racial background have nothing to do with their ability to mend fences, but this also smacks of something decidedly un-American—monarchism.   It lends more to the power of one’s blood than to their ability.

Personally, I don’t think the expectations of a post-racial society are realistic or even possible.  I would put the chances up there with having a post-oxygen breathing society or a post-water drinking society.  The longing for a post-racial society is just another progressive, utopian fantasy that does nothing but drive everybody nuts because it’s utterly unattainable.  The promoters of such farces are the same social planners that survey race on countless government forms and have made race an issue in everything from employment, to housing, to education, to immigration.  Once again, which is it?  Do we want to paint rainbows or do we want to be colorblind?  Do we want to promote post-racialism or continue to make race a significant factor?

As I see it, race is just a huge political hammer that gets carelessly swung around.  Most of the time it doesn’t have any meaning at all—it’s just a tool to discredit people and institutions we don’t agree with.

I think the race issue would be greatly improved by simply ignoring it—kind of like we do with the $13 trillion debt our government has amassed.  As a matter of fact, after the past couple weeks of obsessive racial finger pointing wouldn’t it be nice if we were that obsessed with retiring our crippling national debt?  There’s only so much credit to go around and if the government takes it all they’ll be none left for you and me, regardless of race, to buy houses and cars and the things we need to get along in life.  And at the end of the day, I’m much more concerned about those issues then I am about the racial feelings of Andrew Breitbart or Barrack Obama or Howard Dean or Bill O’Reilly.

Red Letter Christian Dynasty

The Duck Dynasty controversy has passed.  Phil Robertson was figuratively crucified for his blasphemy against the religious leaders of our day (TV executives) and resurrected victorious to sell airtime, merchandise, and remind everyone that GQ still exists.

Critics on both sides of the duck debate fought as vigorously as they always do on such issues, but I started to see a series of blogs calling foul on only one side, voicing a litany of criticisms towards conservative Christians and their attitudes and opinions over the core subject in contention, homosexuality. 

The various writers had a lot to say about how mean and argumentative these terrible Bible believing Christians are, along with a host of other complaints:

They urge compliance of some commandments but neglect to mention others. 

They speak too plainly about intercourse. 

They are overdoing literal interpretations of the scripture.

They focus on sins that don’t apply to themselves to avoid being fingered.

They insist on recognizing a sin as wrong under all circumstances.

They’re homophobic, dismissive, ignorant, racist, embarrassing, obsessive, power hungry, gluttonous, judgmental, cynical, pessimistic.       

Whew!  Almost sounds like the tone of the jeering mob at the foot of the cross.  Pretty tough stuff, but that’s the life--persecution is part of the deal.  The only thing is, these overly critical blogs weren’t written by atheistic or anti-Christian voices.  These blogs were actually penned by those espousing to be Christians!  I have to admit this realization sucked the life out of me for a minute.  I wasn’t mad, just…bummed--hollowed. 

All of the blogs seemed to push grace and love.  So consistently, in fact, that it almost seemed like a predetermined talking point.  Another commonality was that most of the entries were from the organization, Red Letter Christian.  I poked around to see who they were.  After a few minutes it was clear that Red Letter was just another left wing activist group except they hid behind a cross, figuratively speaking, of course.  Not a literal cross.  That might offend a sinner and usher in a politically incorrect wave of conviction.  In short, their declared goal is to diminish Christianity’s criticism of homosexuality and abortion and embolden its criticism of capitalism, war, and other ills the left has deemed as such.  They consult presidents, hold rallies, and infiltrate colleges.  Be certain, this is Christianity with a “K”. 

And that’s the cleaned up version.  Attacking a substantive view of the Bible always starts out as a deemphasizing of this or that to acquiesce to a new cultural norm.  Then the more sensational historical accounts are no longer deemed literal.  In time, less and less is taken as serious truth.  God is no longer the creator, sin is largely speculative--heaven and hell become metaphoric.  Traditional salvation is just a historical ritual that has no bearing on a modern age.  Sound ridiculous?  Yale and Princeton used to be the Bob Jones Universities and LU’s of their day.  But the Red Letter Christians of decades past got their hooks in and now Christianity is merely a faint, flaccid accompaniment to a progressive political agenda that is motivated lastly by the Word of God, if at all.  At present, colleges coast to coast are well on their way, becoming institutions that desire proliferation of their brand of social justice rather than confronting the injustice of man’s betrayal of a righteous God and the dire implications therein.

Nonetheless, I imagine there are many sincere Christians in the Red Letter movement.  It seems to me there are two obvious reasons they find appeal.  I think many do identify with the politics and I must admit I find this awfully perplexing.  My leanings are fairly public and I’m not going to get into that now.  But I’ll just make one point on the matter.  If the school of political thought I favored was also favored by an overwhelming amount of atheists I would really have to take a moment to make sense of the inconsistency.  In other words, as a dedicated Christian, I am supporting the policies of the most threatening demographic to my faith--in essence, supporting atheists’ policies and voting for atheists’ candidates.  And this is exactly what’s happening.  Do you see the rub here?

The other reason, which I would imagine is more common, is the gentle tone of the love and grace message.  It’s certainly compelling especially in this world of so much vitriol and anger.  But I don’t think God’s love is what many make it out to be.  It’s not always a big hug and a warm smile.  Sometimes Jesus’ love is flipping tables, offending sinners great and small, or even telling his disciples to go buy weapons; selling their cloaks if necessary to do so.  I consider Christ’s love to be salvation from eternal death.  If we’re not upfront and truthful about sin can we really call that love or is it just mere niceties riddled with deceit and dishonesty? 

For 14 years I lived a few blocks from one of the largest gay communities in the country.  There have been a lot of homosexual people in my life--good friends, we’ve worked all over, prayed, marched, cried, done AA together…buried people and killed a few brain cells along the way.  It seems strange to have to paint this picture but with slurs like homophobe handed out like Halloween candy these days--I’m sure you get it.  And don’t confuse the gay community with the gay political structure.  There’s a lot more diversity of thought than you may have guessed, from faith to marriage to politics.  But my point is, I’ve never known any who wanted to be lied to.  That’s not love, that’s simply the path of least resistance.  And if I wanted to hand on the truth about salvation I’d send the Duck Commander before a Red Letter poser any day of the week.