WickedThought

Actions speak louder than words.

(from FactCheck.org)

McCain and Obama debated for the second time, in Nashville. We noted some misleading statements and mangled facts:

• McCain proposed to write down the amount owed by over-mortgaged homeowners and claimed the idea as his own: “It’s my proposal, it’s not Sen. Obama’s proposal, it’s not President Bush’s proposal.” But the idea isn’t new. Obama had endorsed something similar two weeks earlier, and authority for the treasury secretary to grant such relief was included in the recently passed $700 billion financial rescue package.

• Both candidates oversimplified the causes of the financial crisis. McCain blamed it on Democrats who resisted tighter regulation of federal mortgage agencies. Obama blamed it on financial deregulation backed by Republicans. We find both are right, with plenty of blame left over for others, from home buyers to the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

• Obama said his health care plan would lower insurance premiums by up to $2,500 a year. Experts we’ve consulted see little evidence such savings would materialize.

• McCain misstated his own health care plan, saying he’d give a $5,000 tax credit to “every American” His plan actually would provide only $2,500 per individual, or $5,000 for couples and families. He also misstated Obama’s health care plan, claiming it would levy fines on “small businesses” that fail to provide health insurance. Actually, Obama’s plan exempts “small businesses.”

• McCain lamented that the U.S. was forced to “withdraw in humiliation” from Somalia in 1994, but he failed to note that he once proposed to cut off funding for troops to force a faster withdrawal.

• Obama said, “I favor nuclear power.” That’s a stronger statement than we’ve heard him make before. As recently as last December, he said, “I am not a nuclear energy proponent.”

• McCain claimed “1.3 million people in America make their living off eBay.” Actually, only 724,000 persons in the U.S. have income from eBay, and only some of them rely on it as their primary source.

For full details, and additional quibbles, please read our Analysis section.

In my own estimation, being someone who has competed in debates on the collegiate level, McCain won that debate on points. He knew the format better, used the format better, was more aggressive, more assertive and directly answered more questions.

We’ll see how the media and public view it.

While holding a staff of solid gold, the Pope says,
"The global financial crisis is proof that the pursuit of money and success is pointless."

In other words, "Stop spending money to invest in your future and start tithing to the Mother Church."

Asshole.

Story from the BBC.

I expected to be the only person in the theater.

When I got in line to buy my ticket, I was surprised to hear the five people in front of me–three different groups–all ask for tickets to see the very same film. When the cashier asked me what I wanted to see, I said, "One more for the same." She took my card and gave me my ticket. I stopped at the snack bar, got a hot dog and a Coke, and sat down in a theater that was half-full.

This is eleven thirty in the AM we’re talking about. 11:30 AM. And I’m living in Phoenix, AZ. You can’t drive a single city block without running into a church and the theater is HALF-FULL. I pick a seat, say a prayer of thanks to Discordia and eat my hot dog.

The lights go down and the movie begins. Bill Maher standing at the spot many Christians believe Jesus will return and fulfil the prophecies in the Book of Revelation. (He calls it "Revelations," but that’s such a common error, I don’t fault him for it.)

Now, as I’m watching the film, there’s a lot of laughter. And it’s deep-throated, full-bellied laughter. And then there are periods of deathly silence. The kind of silence that accompanies absolute terror.

And then, right around the thirty minute mark, about half the audience gets up and leaves. As if on cue. As if they were part of a church group who came to watch the movie so they could address the issues when asked about it on the six o’clock news. They just got up and walked out. It was difficult to ignore. This mass of people lifting themselves from their seats–all at once–and walking out. We now had a theater quarter-filled. And we kept laughing. Except when we weren’t. Except when we were terrified.

Religulous is not a funny film. I mean, there’s funny in it, but mostly, I was afraid. I was afraid for an electorate who believes that dinosaurs walked with man in the Garden of Eden. Sixty percent of them. Who believes the world is 6,000 years old. Sixty percent of them. Who refuse to acknowledge evidence from across multiple scientific disciplines because that evidence cannot mesh with the belief that a Supreme Being flooded the world sparing only six people so they may repopulate the planet.

Sixty percent.

(Those who like to point out that we’re really talking about religious extremists when we talk about gay bashing and replacing the first ten amendments with the Ten Commandments need to remember that one of those "extremists" is sitting in the White House right now and another is the nominee for Vice President for the Republican Party.)

Looking over at Rottentomatoes.com, I notice a lot of critics giving the film a negative review because they feel Bill Maher isn’t addressing the subjects of religion and faith in a serious way. "There are real scholars on these subjects," they say, "who could eat Bill Maher’s lunch." They say Maher picks on the little guy. The truckers for Jesus. The televangelist who goes around calling himself the Second Coming of Christ and the Anti-Christ in the same breath. The desperately in denial "ex-gay" guy who helps other homosexuals "convert through Christ" and denies even the existence of homosexuality. This is their critique. If Bill talked to real religious scholars, he’d get a better defense of Christianity.

But those critics are missing the most important point of the film. We’re not talking about scholars. We’re talking about the laymen. That sixty percent. We’re not talking about Biblical scholars–most of whom study the Bible as literature, not as Divine Truth. We’re talking about the people who don’t study the Bible but still believe in it. We’re talking about people who don’t study the Koran, but still believe in it. People who don’t questions what they’re told. People who ignore discomforting evidence in favor of comforting fairie tales. That’s who we’re talking about.

(And, as a sidenote, as someone who’s chased this subject for more than a few years, I can honestly say that I’ve heard what the "experts" have to say on the Bible. And, frankly, their answers are really no better than the layman’s answers. I mean, honestly. I’ve heard Bible scholars claim "the Red Sea" was really "the Sea of Reeds." And I’ve heard them cherry pick "the Word of God" to fit their arguments and interpretations. Just ask them why there are two different Creation stories and two different sets of Ten Commandments and why only two of the Gospels mention Jesus’ virgin birth and why none of the Gospels can agree on what happened Easter morning. Just watch these "experts" start making baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad excuses why "the Ineffible Word of God" makes mistakes, oversights and downright errors.)

Back to the main point.

I particularly like the Salon.com critique of Maher: "he’s not qualified to talk about religion."

Really? And what qualifications do you need to ask the question, "Why does the Emperor have no clothes?" Or, more specificially, "Why does God hate fags but not people who eat shrimp? Both are listed as ‘abominations’ in the Bible, right? Shouldn’t he hate both groups? How about the people who wear two different kinds of cloth? That’s an abomination, too, listed right next to the ‘hates fags’ line everyone references. Should we stone them to death, too?"

Exactly what kind of qualifications do you need to read what the Bible explicitly says without ignoring the passages you don’t like?

And when we read the Koran, exactly what kind of "expertise" do you need to decipher the several hundred "murder the infidel" passages? It says it right there. "Murder the infidel." I don’t think I need a degree to decipher that, do I? Do I need a Masters or a PHD to properly translate the words fatwa and jihad?

This movie isn’t about experts. It’s about that guy Sarah Palin keeps calling "Joe Six-pack" and what he believes about the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Revelations of Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard. He may be "Mohammed Six-pack" or "Abraham Six-pack" in other parts of the world, but he’s still there. Still reading the book that tells him to hate-hate-hate and kil-kill-kill. But he’s there. And he doesn’t need no "expert" to tell him what his book says. He’s doing just fine without any experts.

And that’s what most people are missing. The reason Maher isn’t consulting the experts is because these folks aren’t talking to them, either.

This isn’t a movie about experts; it’s a movie about us. Folks without degrees in Biblical History, who aren’t Egypt/Israel archeaologists or anthropologists. And the things we believe are terrifying.

And hillarious.