Category: Media and society

Oh, so that’s why Bryan Fischer says the darndest things!

Newsweek has it all figured out. The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer has been getting in touch with his inner imp. Zany? Wacky? Outrageous? Nah, it is all a ploy to get ratings and irritate the opponents.  According to Newsweek:

You might think that attention in the form of mockery is not what a public-policy organization would want. But when your business is waging a culture war, there is no such thing as bad publicity for ideological or rhetorical extremism. Being criticized by liberals in the media raises the profile of a socially conservative organization, and burnishes its credibility among the base. Just ask Sarah Palin, or her fans. Fischer’s critics also benefit from the twofer of his being both entertaining and threatening.

Call it “hatertainment.”

But he doesn’t really mean it, does he? Here is Newsweek’s take on that question.

Getting attention from a perch so far off the mainstream media radar screen requires ingenuity. And Fischer is able to shock even jaded journalists and pundits. But does he really believe his most widely circulated statements? Yes and no. A Dec. 21 blog post earned Jon Stewart’s mockery on The Daily Show when Fischer asserted, “President Obama wants to give the entire land mass of the United States of America back to the Indians. He wants Indian tribes to be our new overlords.” All Obama had done is express approval for the nonbinding U.N. Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples which contains one passage affirming land rights. Does Fischer honestly believe that Obama is going to turn your home over to a Native American tribe? Not really, but by pretending he does—which he defends as “taking Obama at his word,”—he gets to make a ludicrous claim. “Either Obama meant what he said or he’s a bald-faced liar,” says Fischer. “I don’t think Obama meant what he said.”

Clever. Since Fischer is just pretending, let’s try that in reverse.

When Fischer says things, either he means what he says or he’s a bald-faced liar. You pick.

Maybe President Obama could be a talk show host on the AFA radio network. According to Fischer, the President has got the formula down.

According to Newsweek and Newsweek’s experts, the whole shtick is more business than conviction. 

“Like all Christian political groups [AFA] has leaders who are entrepreneurial,” says Green. “In the past [Christian conservatives] have sometimes been controversial on purpose, to get attention from the rest of us and to raise money for their organizations. It’s not that they are insincere, but there are organizational motives.” So if Fischer shocks or horrifies coastal media elites by expressing views that they consider bigoted or simply baffling, he is just doing his job.

So if there are “organizational motives,” then saying goofy, offensive stuff you don’t really mean is not insincere but just part of the biz. Glad that’s all cleared up.

After reading the Newsweek piece, I am not sure which more offensive – what Fischer does with his platform or Newsweek’s cynical regard for what they portray as business as usual for Christian ministry.

Blood libel? Death panels?

Sarah Palin issued a statement which responds to critics who assigned various degrees of responsibility to her for the shootings in Arizona. Here is her video:

The full statement is here. I want to focus on these words:

If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
When I first heard her describe the accusations against her as a “blood libel,” I cringed because the term historically relates to a horrendous anti-Semitic accusation that Jews kill Christian children for their blood. Not surprising to me, a controversy has arisen over her use of the term. Just a bit ago, the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement condemning the use of the phrase.

It is unfortunate that the tragedy in Tucson continues to stimulate a political blame game.  Rather than step back and reflect on the lessons to be learned from this tragedy, both parties have reverted to political partisanship and finger-pointing at a time when the American people are looking for leadership, not more vitriol.  In response to this tragedy we need to rise above partisanship, incivility, heated rhetoric, and the business-as-usual approaches that are corroding our political system and tainting the atmosphere in Washington and across the country.

It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder.  Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks, and we agree with her that the best tradition in America is one of finding common ground despite our differences.

Still, we wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase “blood-libel” in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others. While the term “blood-libel” has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history.

I agree with the ADL on this matter. Rep. Giffords is Jewish and it is insensitive at best for evangelical Palin to use a term which is offensive to Jews in this situation. Not only is it insensitive, the use of the term obscures the expressions of sympathy and the accurate aspects of her analysis. 

Another consequence is that the judgment by which she judges will now be used to judge her rhetoric. For instance, Sarah Palin and the far right have invoked the term “death panels” as a way of accusing supporters of the health care bill of favoring the deaths of older people in order to cut costs. This would be a kind of blood libel, wouldn’t it? Accusing someone of creating a means to bring death to old people via legislation is a serious allegation and one that is simply false. In light of the currently toxic public square, evangelicals and social conservatives should just speak in plain and descriptive language rather than invent defamatory terms to describe ideological opponents.

World Net Daily hearts the Pink Swastika

In a given month, World Net Daily numbers page views in the millions; I number mine in the thousands. So I know that repeating the critique of the Pink Swastika will not reach the number of people now misled by WND but here goes anyway…

WND has a superstore with an apparently spanking new edition of Scott Lively’s The Pink Swastika in it. WND site owner Joseph Farah gives a shout out to TPS without addressing any of the criticisms. He says he has read all of the criticism, but he attributes it to “homosexual bloggers.” Well, I am not a homosexual blogger; Grove City colleague and historian Jon David Wynekin is not a homosexual blogger and we spent lots of time and detail demonstrating the flaws in the book. Campus Crusade for Christ is not a homosexual blogger organization and it removed an exerpt of The Pink Swastika from one of their websites. Exodus International is not a homosexuality affirming organization but they removed the link to The Pink Swastika. NARTH is hardly a gay affirming bunch but they removed all references to Scott Lively and The Pink Swastika.

Maybe Joseph Farah didn’t know that; maybe he doesn’t care, having already made up his mind.

Uganda’s Rolling Stone editor pledges to publish more photos

According to Rolling Stone editor, Giles Muhame, the lawyer for the paper has cleared them to publish more pictures of gays.

An extraordinary meeting of Rolling Stone editors held last night resolved to publish dozens of photos of top lesbian couples in the country. “Since the judge did not post pone the interim order secured earlier by a host of homos, you can now expose them,” our lawyer said, as our editors smiled. Guys, prepare for another round of sensational optical nutrition…

Apparently, the Rolling Stone camp is taking this two week period between the hearing and the ruling as an opportunity to continue their campaign. Attorneys for the GLBT groups might need to get a restraining order soon to prevent more outings.

Bryan Fischer makes the RidicuList

The honors continue to roll in.

Bryan Fischer yesterday dug himself in a little deeper with a second effort to explain why the Medal of Honor has gone femme. He just can’t seem to understand what the fuss is about.

The fuss does continue. Opponents of Fischer are using his strange words to put some heat on his allies. Yesterday, Bob VanderPlaats, the pastor who led the charge in Iowa to overturn judges he didn’t like with the help of Bryan Fischer, distanced himself from the AFA spokesman’s comments.

The last night on CNN, John Roberts, sitting in for Anderson Cooper, added Mr. Fischer to the RidicuList. I watched the end of the brief segment where Roberts correctly noted that Guinta and other recent Medal of Honor recipients have indeed inflicted casualties on the enemy, in contrast to the worry of Mr. Fischer. And then he noted Medal recipient Thomas Hudner, Jr, a Korean War vet, who was recognized for his brave attempts to save another pilot.

I wonder what part III will say?

By the way, here is the commentary by Bill McGurn that Fischer keeps referring to. You would not recognize it from Fischer, parts 1 & 2.

UPDATE: I don’t have to wonder about Part 3 anymore; it is out. No matter how many parts, the title of the series says it all. Fischer finds a “disturbing trend” where there is no trend, gives the trend a name – feminization – and then uses it to denigrate the Medal of Honor. When he writes now for the third time, the “Feminization of the Medal of Honor,” he does not mean that as a good thing.