In fairness, the spirit of Christmas, and because it’s just an excellent post that interprets the song in a fresh manner that I have never encountered, here is Dwayne Zechman’s rebuttal of the criticism by me and others of the popular Christmas song written by American composer Katherine Kennicott Davis in 1941. Did you know that the song was first recorded by the Trapp Family singers of “The Sound of Music” fame? That alone raises it a bit in my estimation. I also note that Dwayne, wisely does not defend the wretched lyrics in the David Bowie-Bing Crosby version. That would be impossible.
I have to take issue with all the dunking on “The Little Drummer Boy” that I’m reading here. It’s a favorite of mine, and the reason has nothing to do with the ridiculous scenario.
The reason is that this song is a microcosmic allegory of the Christian experience.
I don’t normally speak of my faith and religious beliefs here. I’m a firm believer in the notion that Truth stands on its own; it doesn’t need the support of religion in order to be true. So this post is definitely a bit of a departure for me.
“Come, they told me.” “A newborn King to see”
This is how it begins. We learn from others about the Gospel of Jesus. We are encouraged to come along on the journey.
“Our finest gifts we bring” “to lay before the King” “So to honor Him” “When we come”
We begin the journey and quickly learn that, to those who invited us on this journey, it’s a big deal. There are songs we may or may not have heard. There are responsive readings that we almost certainly don’t know. There are people here whose whole lives are dedicated to their faith and their church. Am I expected to do that too? What IS expected of me? What does Jesus actually want from me?
The same Facebook friend who has previously endorsed idiotic comparisons between Mary and Joseph’s journey to Bethlehem and illegal immigration approvingly posted the photo above from St. Susanna Parish in Dedham, Mass. Its Nativity scene includes a sign reading “ICE was here” in place of Mary, Joseph, and the infant Jesus. Behold…
Terrific: bad history and bad analogies for ignorant progressive dupes! Merry Christmas!
Well, unfortunately I started thinking that it’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas this week, so I’m depressed and miserable.
It’s my favorite time of the year because its the most ethical time of the year, but my wife, who was a Christmas fanatic, is dead; my son, who now insists that she’s my daughter, barely speaks to me though I have been nothing but supportive (because that’s my job); my sister is going to be across country for the holiday; and my mom, who was the center of every Christmas in my life as long as she was breathing, breathes no more. I have neither the time to decorate a tree properly (like I used to) nor the resources to purchase one, and half-hearted decorations will only remind me of 2702 Westminster Place glories past. But I can’t avoid Christmas, just as I can’t avoid ““It’s a Wonderful Life”” as you know. So I’ll be celebrating my favorite holiday here, on Ethics Alarms, with my five loyal readers and the other visitors who drop in, and pretty much nowhere else. That means, among other gifts, I will be bestowing various Christmas-related post from the Ethics Alarms Christmas attic. Like this one…
Other than the reality that Jesus’s mother and her husband were not in any sense of the word refugees, as they were traveling from one part of the Roman Empire to another, and the even more relevant reality that this was over 2,000 years ago in a different culture and time that make attempted comparisons with modern immigration policies, problems and legal enforcement ludicrous, it’s a great point!
Defaulting to the Bible and religion as the cheapest “appeal to authority” imaginable is persuasive evidence of a lack of genuine arguments and an IQ deficit, or perhaps a cynical desire to confuse the intellectually deprived. In either case, its an abuse of Christmas. Indeed, the defenders of illegal immigration literally have no valid justification for their beliefs at all. A church that would engage in this cynical, ahistorical deception can’t be trusted.
I typically play untrustworthy news source roulette every morning as I have that crucial first cup of coffee. Today the silver ball landed in the Fox News slot. Even before that ad I just posted about made my head explode, spraying bone, brains and blood all over the room (and my dog), one of the fungible Fox Bleached Blondes had already made me wish I had stayed in bed. All the Fox Blondes are the same. though some have worse voices that others, and Dana Perino is interesting to watch because her botoxed face is completely immobile except for the occasional blink and her lips, which make her face resemble those creepy “Clutch Cargo” cartoons where moving human lips were superimposed on cartoon faces.
But I digress. This particular Fox segment featured an interview with the actor I had never heard of who plays St. Peter in a new Fox movie or series or something. The Fox News hostess said that the thing was about “the incredible life of St. Peter.”
Incredible is right! There are absolutely no credible accounts of St. Peter’s life, no evidence, no documentation, no historical accounts, nothing. “Tradition” has him founding the Catholic Church, but that’s impossible, so people who aren’t incredibly gullible pretty much agree that at best there were two different Peters, the disciple and the first Pope. We don’t know much about either of them.
Fox News is supposed to be a trusted news source. Its alleged journalists shouldn’t be proselytizing, promoting Christianity, or representing Bible apocrypha as fact. It’s not fact, but faith, or legend, or mythology, but whatever it is, if a Fox News journalist will tell viewers that it is fact, what else that is of dubious provenance will Fox News call true?
Unethical, unprofessional, misleading and stupid.
But at least Fox News runs ads showing the President of the United States hawking cheap watches….
One would think that a Congressional resolution calling for the condemnation of communism and socialism would be an easy one to vote for, but one would be wrong. Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.), the daughter of Cuban refugees, introduced a non-binding resolution to Congress this past week called “Denouncing the horrors of socialism.” Most of the historical villains referenced in the resolution —Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Kim Jong Un, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, and Nicolás Maduro—were Communists. Nevertheless, not only did 100 members of the Democratic Party vote against a statement of principles that flows directly from our founding documents and core values (Jefferson wrote, “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it,” and Madison added that it “is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest…), they were confident enough of the effectiveness their party’s pro-socialist propaganda to go on the record as opposing that statement. All the worst villains are there: the “Squad,” Pelosi, Jaimie Raskin, Maxine Waters.
The number of Democrats unwilling to condemn socialism, and therefore its nasty offspring communism, was even more damning: in addition to the 98 naysayers, two Democrats voted “present” and 47 weenies refuse to vote at all.
Democrats are now telling us exactly who they are and what their agenda is.
We are finally at the last installment of the Make Fake Ron Howard Eat His Words Ethics Alarms Challenge, and it is the longest and most thorough of all. Again,I would be impressed greatly if one of our progressive-minded readers would rise in “Ron’s” defense, but “his” facile, talking-point besotted declaration of liberal pride is as indefensible as much as it is pandering to the Left’s fondest delusions—as the four posts including this one demonstrate. Fake Ron’s manifesto is here; rebuttal #1 is here, #2 is here, and #3 is here.
Now you have #4, a thorough fisking by John Paul, masterfully done.
Take that, Fake Ron!
***
I’m a liberal, but that doesn’t mean what a lot of you apparently think it does.
Good for you? But I’m willing to bet 95% of the time, I know exactly what it means. Studies (I can cite them if you want) often show I know you a lot better than you know me. The big problem with a statement like yours is that your views are often highlighted and celebrated, while republican views are not. Because quite frankly, I’m getting a little tired of being told what I believe and what I stand for.
The same, but see point one. If you don’t like this characterization, maybe you should do a better job of reigning your side in. If people actually cared about things, they should spend more time looking inward than outward.
Spoiler alert: not every liberal is the same, though the majority of liberals I know think along roughly these same lines:
True. No one is the same. But giving where this is going, I’m having a hard time not seeing you about to do what you accuse us of doing.
I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. PERIOD.
Great in theory….You do know republicans do this? But that really isn’t the issue. The issue is how it should be done. The biggest question: Who’s gonna pay for it?
I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that’s interpreted as “I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all.”
No, its not. As far as I know, never in human history has it been. Since you’re claiming it is, the burden of proof is on you. You can’t just make a statement. Also PERIOD? What are you five?
“I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all.” This is not the case. I’m fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it’s impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes “let people die because they can’t afford healthcare” a better alternative. I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. And no, I’m not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen.
Strawman. Has any republican ever said this? There was a lot of (justified) critiques of the ACA (not to mention subterfuge). Also, if you don’t know better critiques of cheaper healthcare, you’re not listening to them. Additionally, everyone has access to it. You can walk into any ER and get anywhere in the country, but that’s not what you’re talking about, is it? I bet you’re also talking about Hormone therapy and abortion. But I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Tell me how you would get healthcare cost down without making someone do their work for cheaper/free. This is going to be a problem with one of your later arguments.
I believe education should be affordable. It doesn’t necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I’m mystified as to why it can’t work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt.
Setting aside the big problem with a significant number of colleges, the short answer: it can be. Trade schools, community colleges, military, are alternative methods to higher education that don’t break the bank. I’m willing to bet 999/1000 an employer doesn’t care where you went to college, only if you can do the job. I know one of Charlie Kirk’s talking point was almost 50% of people working aren’t in a field they got their degree in (I’ll admit, I don’t know if this is true). Still, this is you’re talking point. I also understand (Maybe I’m doing exactly what you accuse me of doing earlier) that colleges are one of liberals sacred institutions. If you think there is a problem, maybe, as I suggested earlier, you look inward towards a solution instead of asking for the government to step in and fix it.
I posted about the “why I am a liberal” social media post that has been surfacing on Facebook and challenged the Ethics Alarms commentariate to dissect its rampant generalities, facile assumptions, and logical fallacies. As I wrote in the post, some previously intelligent people of my acquaintance have been reposting and praising the thing, attributing its authorship to Hollywood nice guy director Ron Howard. He didn’t write it, so this is a textbook “appeal to authority,” especially since the arguments “Ron” makes are flawed at best. They are, however, typical progressive talking points. There is no reason to believe the real Ron Howard has any political science or philosophical acumen or expertise, as he has spent literally his whole life in front of cameras or behind them.
Four EA comment stars took up my challenge, and they all shined. As promised, I am posting all four, each of which would make an excellent civics class topic, if there were high school civics classes that didn’t focus exclusively on leftist cant. (Are there any any?)
You can review Fake Ron’s manifesto here. Rebuttal #1 is by Gamereg; his numbered points correspond to “Ron’s”:
The substacker “Holly Mathnerd,” not for the first time, has a well-written and interesting post about her reaction to a book by the “star” of a reality show I had never heard of and definitely never watched. Christine Brown Woolley’s memoir “Sister Wife: A Memoir of Faith, Family, and Finding Freedom,” released today, is about one of the “stars” of “Sister Wives,” a reality show that has been running for 15 years, including 20 seasons. The show centers on Kody Brown, a fundamentalist Mormon man with twelve children from three wives. His “family” dwells in what Holly calls a “polygamist house”with three apartments branching off a shared common space. That’s Kody above with one of his other wives.
Yikes.
I really don’t care about the details. Polygamy and polyamory (the same thing but without bothering with the marriages) are unethical; never mind the morality issues. Like adultery and prostitution, these are practices that undermine families, real marriages, subjugate women and harm children. Libertarians see nothing wrong with polygamy, or at least think it should be legal, which adequately tells you what’s wrong with libertarians.
I can’t imagine buying a book by a woman who voluntarily submitted to a polyamorous relationship and now wants to make money by writing about what a mistake it was. Gee, ya think? I put Woolley’s memoir in the same category as I would a book by someone who used to shoot nails into his head but who now realizes it was probably a mistake.
From Holly Mathnerd’s account, it seems like the better part of the book is its account of just how phony “reality” shows are, not that this should be a shock to anyone who is familiar with the genre. Holly writes in part,
“…The memoir also peels back the curtain on how fake “reality” really is. Watching the show, you’d think you were seeing the Browns’ daily life: family dinners, arguments, weddings, tears. But Christine makes clear that what you’re really seeing is a carefully curated product — sometimes scripted, sometimes manipulated, always edited with an eye toward what would get people talking on Twitter.
Kody, in particular, seemed to understand this instinctively. He weaponized the cameras. He would drop painful revelations on air — things Christine was hearing for the first time along with millions of strangers — and then claim that the wives couldn’t “control the narrative” because they weren’t “being honest enough.” Meanwhile, what they were really up against was the power of editing: hours of footage boiled down into forty-two minutes that could makeanyone look like a saint, a villain, or an afterthought depending on what the producers wanted.
It reminded me of the gaslighting built into the whole setup. The audience was constantly asked to question its own eyes: “No, you didn’t see favoritism; you saw family unity. No, you didn’t see cruelty; you saw tough love. No, you didn’t see neglect; you saw the noble sacrifice of plural marriage.” Christine’s memoir blows a hole in that façade by admitting what fans always suspected: our eyes weren’t lying, the edit was….
Another benefit of the post was that the blogger introduced the term “parasocial relationship,” which I had never encountered before. She didn’t define it, but I looked it up: Google’s bot says that “a parasocial relationship is a one-sided, one-way connection in which an individual develops a strong sense of intimacy, familiarity, and emotional investment with a public figure or fictional character they don’t know personally. These relationships are common and often occur through media, such as television, social media, or podcasts, where an individual feels like they have a personal connection with the person or character on screen or in their feed. While these relationships can be a natural part of human behavior and even provide positive influences, they become unhealthy if they interfere with real-life interactions or daily functioning.”
I know, I know…there are a lot of these, probably many thousands, but most manage to pretend to not be likely to mold vulnerable young minds in to wanting their own fellow citizens dead. Georgetown Professor Jonathan Brown, however is special.
He is a full professor at the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University [above] and the Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization. He is clearly the campus cheerleader, one of them anyway, for Islam, not that there’s anything wrong with that. I would personally have Brown frisked for strap-on bombs if he was ever a guest at one of my dinner parties, however. Fortunately, I am as likely to ever be in a position to hold a dinner party as I am to clone a passenger pigeon.
On Twitter/X he wrote last week, among other things, “I’m not an expert, but I assume Iran could still get a bomb easily. I hope Iran does some symbolic strike on a base, then everyone stops…I’m surprised this is what these FDD/Hasbara people have been auto-erotically asphyxiating themselves for all these years…Ironically, the main takeaways (in my non-expert opinion, and I’m happy to be corrected) from all this have nothing to do with a US attack: 1) Iran can take a licking; 2) if Israel attacks Iranian cities, it gets fucked up pretty bad. I mean I’ve been shocked at the damage Iranian missiles caused; 3) despite his best efforts, Reza Pahlavi HVAC repair services still only third best in Nova.”
When his post came to light and some harsh criticism began coming his way, Brown quickly made his account private so nobody but fellow Jihadists could see what he’s thinking, and wrote, “I deleted my previous tweet because a lot of people were interpreting it as a call for violence. That’s not what I intended. I have two immediate family members in the US military who’ve served abroad and wouldn’t want any harm to befall American soldiers” Brown later deleted that post too.
Imagine anyone thinking that his published hope for an Iranian strike on a U.S. base was a call for violence! What’s the matter with these people?
Fox News did some journalism and revealed that Brown is married to a journalist for the television network Al Jazeera and that her father was deported to Turkey for supporting and aiding an Iranian terrorist organization.
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Should there be any adverse consequences to Brown, or any similarly behaving professor, for his social media outburst?
Ethics Alarms 