Or so he would have us believe
“Moralizing’s High Cost
Published: January 19, 2012
Multiple marriages and even adultery are not automatic disqualifications for the presidency. If they were, the country would have a very different roster of former presidents and candidates. But when a political party decides that moralizing about personal conduct is as important as public policy, it inevitably makes some of its leaders vulnerable to the worst charges of hypocrisy…
…“Mr. Gingrich responded that he knew the issue would dog him through the campaign, but that he and his wife decided “the country was worth the pain.” He told the Marine — and all voters struggling with the same question — that the decision was one that “you have to make.”
It’s magnanimous of him to be willing to allow voters to decide for themselves on the importance of his moral choices, since he and his party have been so unwilling to allow the public to make its own moral choices.
For too many Republicans, it’s not enough that Americans are free to pray in the house of worship of their choice; they want all children to be required to pray in school. They want to impose their own ideas about sexuality and abortion on everyone. And they love to accuse Democrats of being insufficiently pious. (Rick Perry’s exit from the race on Thursday may mean no more ads accusing President Obama of a “war on religion” and liberals of believing faith is a sign of weakness. Or, it may not, depending on how desperate the other candidates get.)
When Republican officials then get caught violating one of the Ten Commandments, they make an enormous show of contrition and repentance and ask for the public’s forgiveness. But as the hypocrisy level continues to rise, that forgiveness may become much harder to provide.”
Polarized news market has altered the political process in South Carolina primary
Cassi Creek: The link above leads to a rather long but highly significant article. Please read every line and follow as many of the subsidiary links as you can. It describes an increasingly common practice among voters and non-voters and their selection of news sources and resources. More and more voters are choosing bubble news –highly biased sources that feed them a steady diet of selective reports, many of which confuse the issues further by including propaganda with facts.
With the development of the 24-hour news cycle and with around the clock talk radio and television masquerading as news sources, it is possible to spend the entire day on-line, watching TV, or listening to talk radio while never hearing a single item that conflicts or disagrees with your personal core bias.
We are all more or less guilty of falling into this pattern of bubble isolation news. I never watch Fox News, believing it to be largely a GOP funded 24-hour propaganda source. I never listen to talk radio, and rarely watch talk television. I regard Christian oriented broadcasting and internet as Marx described them to be. I view the organizations that fund Evangelical media as a dangerous collective that wants to demolish the 1st Amendment and create a theocracy with mandatory participation.
There are, at the same time, sources I find to be unacceptable in many ways despite their innate leftward trend in reporting news. For instance, The Huffington Post is highly regarded by many people with a liberal bent. However, they also are given to publishing “alternative medicine” articles that are absolutely bullshit in conclusion and potentially harmful to people who have the misfortune to believe them.
My own bubble includes CNN, The Washington Post, the New York Times, NPR, PBS, CBS, NBC, and ABC News. I also tend to trust AP, Reuters, and BBC. For military news, I read various publications by the various branches of service.
These bubbles are everywhere now, we all live under ones of our own making. We need to be aware of our self-inflicted decrease in possibly accurate sources of information just as we are aware of the steadily increasing diet of propaganda we are exposed to daily,