Religion of hatred and euphoria

Now that George W. Bush has left the harsh glare of the White House and Barack Obama has settled into the highest office in the land, it might be reasonable to suppose that Bush hatred and Obama euphoria will begin to subside. Unfortunately, there is good reason to doubt that the common sources that have nourished these dangerous political passions will soon lose their potency. At first glance, Bush hatred and Obama euphoria could not be more different. Hatred of Mr. Bush went well beyond the partisan broadsides typical of democratic politics. For years it disfigured its victims with open, indeed proud, loathing for the very manner in which Mr. Bush walked and talked. It compelled them to denounce the president and his policies as not merely foolish or wrong or contrary to the national interest, but as anathema to everything that made America great. ... Bush hatred and Obama euphoria are particularly toxic because they thrive in and have been promoted by the news media, whose professional responsibility, it has long been thought, is to gather the facts and analyze their significance, and by the academy, whose scholarly training, it is commonly assumed, reflects an aptitude for and dedication to systematic study and impartial inquiry. ... Some will speculate that the outbreak of hatred and euphoria in our politics is the result of the transformation of left-liberalism into a religion, its promulgation as dogma by our universities, and students' absorption of their professors' lesson of immoderation. This is unfair to religion. At least it's unfair to those forms of biblical faith that teach that God's ways are hidden and mysterious, that all human beings are both deserving of respect and inherently flawed, and that it is idolatry to invest things of this world -- certainly the goods that can be achieved through politics -- with absolute value. Through these teachings, biblical faith encourages skepticism about grand claims to moral and political authority and an appreciation of the limits of one's knowledge, both of which well serve liberal democracy. In contrast, by assembling and maintaining faculties that think alike about politics and think alike that the university curriculum must instill correct political opinions, our universities cultivate intellectual conformity and discourage the exercise of reason in public life. It is not that our universities invest the fundamental principles of liberalism with religious meaning -- after all the Declaration of Independence identifies a religious root of our freedom and equality. Rather, they infuse a certain progressive interpretation of our freedom and equality with sacred significance, zealously requiring not only outward obedience to its policy dictates but inner persuasion of the heart and mind. This transforms dissenters into apostates or heretics, and leaders into redeemers. Consequently, though Bush hatred may weaken as the 43rd president minds his business back home in Texas, and while Obama euphoria may fade as the 44th president is compelled to immerse himself in the daunting ambiguities of power, our universities will continue to educate students to believe that hatred and euphoria reflect political wisdom. Urgent though the problem is, not even the efficient and responsible spending of a $1 trillion stimulus package would begin to address it. Wall Street Journal

Wow. I'm going to have to stop bad-mouthing the legacy press (quite so much). at least someone out there in reporter land gets it.

I blame the lack of real religion. That is maybe I should call it legacy religion. We now have a new crop of religion to follow. Things like global warming, political correctness,hating all the right people (right as in conservative) We need to teach a religion in school. Oh, wait, all of those new religions are taught to our children every day. Their curriculum is centred on environment. They are not taught to find the truth, they are taught to agree with their teachers. That will be a handy skill in university because this is how you get a PHD. You better not question your PHD advisor. You better follow exactly what they say or you will never get in to the club.

Then comes the media. The media wants, needs to sell. They need eyeballs on their advertisers and the best way to get people to your site is to make them feel emotion. If you make someone say "wow!" or "Oh, my God!", they are off their guard for what you are trying to sell them. The media doesn't care what the truth is. The media just wants to stir the pot enough to get people all bothered. Then, when the people are looking the other way, the media slips the adds under their nose. The truth never enters in to it. The legacy media is all about preaching. The message comes second to getting people to show up.

I think the freedom of the press should be limited to media telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, as defined by someone other than the people who stand to benefit from what is being reported. This will never happen because nothing gets done any more without someone getting something out of it. No one buys books that tell the truth. Few buy papers with the intention of actually reading them. Magazines only sell for the ads containing pretty girls or toys.

And blogs ... ... Don't get me started. Blogs are the worst. I'm one of them for God's sake. I know no one reads this blog save a few friends, yet I plug away, toil for hours at a through just putting my thoughts here for no good reason. I would say this is a good enough reason to listen to me. I may not know what I'm talking about, but I say it with honesty and with no intention to sell you anything. I could type what we all had for dinner and satisfy my need to put myself out there. (not really)

Pyjamas Media just recently stopped their advertising business that was set up to keep some bloggers employed and blogging. This is an adjustment of the new media. Nothing to blog about really.

The legacy media has levelled it's very powerful guns at Israel and Bush. So many people buy what the legacy media sells that neither Bush or Israel may survive. Figuratively or literally. Bush will be vilifiied for eternity. Israel may be wiped off the map because Western media has convinced people not to listen to her plees for help. Who will be next? Our freedom to speak our minds back at the media is on the docket for destruction. There are people out there who believe that letting people who believe different than they do is a bad thing. This means that those people, not the people who agree with them, must be silenced. <cough>Pelosi </cough>

I vaguely remember Obama saying something about bipartisan government. The only thing bipartisan I've noticed is the Democrats won, have an agenda and the Republicans are obliged to step out of the way. This is about what I expected. How much is this monotheistic, er single sided government going to cost us? Somewhere between umteen trillion and absolutely everything.