“Political Lying” Article by Rick Perlstein

In the May/June 2011 copy of Mother Jones, which my mother shared with me, there was an article addressing some of the same themes I’ve been describing in recent blog posts. The article is called “Inside the GOP's Fact-Free Nation: From Nixon's plumbers to James O'Keefe's video smears: How political lying became normal.” You can read it at the link below.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/history-political-lying

The article isn’t necessarily a piece of objective investigative journalism, but I thought the author had some good food for thought.

Proverbs 14:1

Every wise woman builds her house, but the foolish one tears it down with her own hands.

Is There Bias in the Mainstream Media?

Many political and social conservatives decry an alleged liberal bias in the so-called “mainstream media.” Concerns of such bias have led to a backlash that has led to the success of conservative talk radio and Fox News Channel.

To a point, I understand and agree there is a bias in the mainstream media. As someone who runs in a variety of different social circles—from conservative Christians to liberal idealists to pro-business capitalists—I actually think about this point quite a lot and have for a long time.

Many of my friends and acquaintances believe adamantly that there is a left-tilt in the mainstream media and it ticks them off. I also have plenty of friends who completely relate to the cultural perspectives shared by many mainline journalists, so it would never occur to them that there is anything wrong with the mainstream media’s worldview. As a consumer of such media who is fairly sensitive to each of these perspectives, I personally have for years had my antennae up listening and reading for evidence of such liberal bias.

In my observation, most journalists in the mainstream media seem to come from fairly homogenous backgrounds culturally. They seem to be college educated. Many are from the East Coast (but rarely from the South). Religion does not seem to be of much importance to them. And they seem to think they’re pretty clever.

I pick all this up from a plethora of fairly subtle things. NPR stations encourage listeners to contribute to support the “intelligent talk radio” on NPR. Such statements seem to be code for: “Yes, we are technically a type of ‘talk radio’ but we’re not blathering idiots like Rush, Glenn and their ilk.” I get the sense the point they’re trying to express is that Terry Gross and Diane Reem are qualitatively superior to the right wing windbags.

In mainstream media reporting, I’ve also noticed that acceptance of the Theory of Evolution is a given; no sane person would admit to Creationist sympathies. The unspoken assumption seems to be: “We are well-educated and smart; well-educated, smart people are always Darwinists.”

When religion is covered in various stories by the mainstream media, I often get the impression the people reporting are really thinking “WTF? Can you believe such crazy people exist?” Sometimes it is the tone of the reporting. But a lot of my impression is based simply on the type of stories that are chosen. We always seem to hear the stories of the religious bigots who are burning someone else’s scripture, or folks who are believing in something that defies scientific or other logical proof. It gives one the impression that if you run into these journalists at a cocktail party, it might be wise to not come out of the closet as a Christian.

I think that homogeneity in the culture of American journalism and perceived cultural bias is likely why Dan Rather (a native Texan) played up his regional accent and even added flaky colloquial phrases later in his career. I don’t know that for sure. That is just my gut reaction. But frankly why else would he start using those odd colloquialisms?

Indeed, some of those little witticisms were so darned wacky, I was truly embarrassed as a fellow Texan. (Classics: “Bush has run through Dixie like a big wheel through a cotton field.” “If [Gore] doesn’t carry Florida, Slim will have left town.”)

Clearly, Dan had not spent a lot of time in the Lone Star State in recent years. I don’t know anyone these days who talks like that. It was like a 40 year old stereotype of how Texans express themselves. But when he was still on the air, my assumption was that Dan spoke like that to appeal to the “common folk” and appear less of a New York liberal. I don’t know who he thought he was fooling, but I guess he thought it was worth a shot. For those who are unfamiliar, the link below has an article from 2000 about Dan’s “down-home witticisms.”

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/feature/2000/11/08/rather

So, yes, Virginia, I do believe the mainstream media has certain biases. I think all of us do. If I’ve learned nothing else as a lawyer over the past decade plus, I’ve learned that human objectivity is a myth. We are all shaped by our life experiences and the attitudes we’ve been exposed to. We should try to be objective if we are lawyers or journalists. But we should also be aware that subjectivity is always going to seep into anything we do. We should be aware of that tendency so we can fight against it as best we can. If we’re not even aware, then we won’t be successful in that struggle.

Frankly, I think it also helps to listen to different perspectives. I always encourage my students to listen open-mindedly to different opinions and points of view. We learn and grow that way. But hearing other perspectives also helps us to realize the biases that we carry around.

I imagine the newsroom of most mainstream media outlets to be composed of people from roughly similar backgrounds and values. They seem to have group think a lot of time. They don’t seem to realize many people in this country have different life experiences and belief systems that (gasp!) may be valid or at least deserving of equal respect. (See the November 19, 2009 post to this blog for some discussion of the media’s reaction to Jimmy Carter’s expression of his Christian faith in the 1976 election.) I think such work environments could benefit from less group think and more diversity of opinion. I’m not saying CBS and CNN should just hire a bunch more registered Republicans. That is too simplistic. Instead, I think that a real diversity of life experience and perspective would add a lot.

Now I want to make clear that even though I do believe there is a sort of cultural bias in the mainstream media, in my long-time, critical observation, I don’t necessarily perceive political bias in the stories that are typically reported. Even though I think that the mainstream media is likely dominated by secular, college-educated Northeasterners, I don’t typically notice that the mainstream media is more supportive of Democratic politicians and policies than Republican politicians and policies.

Indeed, the backlash against alleged media bias really ticks me off. For a long time, I have perceived the media to be rather meek and tepid to ask the hard questions. (See the May 18, 2011 post to this blog for a discussion of the media’s interaction with Lee Atwater.)

This kind of spinelessness has gone on for a long time, but the culmination, in my opinion, was the way the media essentially became George W. Bush’s cheerleaders after 9/11 and refused to ask tough questions in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.

Our country is about to observe the tenth anniversary of the horrific tragedy of 9/11. Many of us have not gotten over the shock and anguish of that awful day. Honestly, it is just impossible to get our minds around it fully even so long after the fact. The events of that day were just unimaginably agonizing.

You cannot make sense of such evil and such resultant human suffering. People who did nothing wrong and were just going about their business died unexpectedly in unthinkable ways. But you and I are still here. We cannot bring back the victims of the 9/11 attacks, but I think we have a duty to honor their memory. In my opinion, one way we do that is by keeping our democracy strong. Part of that involves challenging those in authority, asking inconvenient questions and holding our leaders accountable. If we fail to do that, we become no better than a totalitarian state.

Mark 3:27

No one gets into the house of a strong person and steals anything without first tying up the strong person. Only then can the house be burglarized.

“The Objectivity Bias”

I’ve mentioned before in this blog my admiration for the radio program On the Media, and I wanted to mention a report they did this past summer. It was called “The Objectivity Bias” and was aired on July 29, 2011. It is available at the link below.

http://www.onthemedia.org/2011/jul/29/reporting-extreme-positions/


The report involved modern American journalists’ strong fears of being perceived by the public as biased and partisan. The report examined how that fear impacts journalists’ ability to do their job. Specifically, the fear is that the public will think the media is biased toward the Democrats and are overly critical of the Republicans. It was a very thought-provoking report.

James 3:17 (King James Version)

But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

"Trash City" Photographs

I came across a short article and photo essay recently, which seemed apropos of recent posts to this blog. It documented life for hundreds of human beings in a dump outside the capital of Mozambique. The link below will pull up the article and photos.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/08/27/Mozambique.trash.city/index.html?hpt=hp_abar

In one sense I'm hesitant to share the article and photos in this forum. We Westerners often have a stereotyped view of Africa, that it is just a continent of human misery and hopelessness. I have already posted several heartwrenching articles about the dire famine in Eastern Africa. I'm torn between wanting to raise awareness of the suffering of others in our human family, and not wanting to perpetuate these stereotypes.

Personally, I have a real love and admiration for Africa and Africans. I have never been to the continent, but have read books and seen documentaries. I am well aware of the beauty of the land and its diverse peoples. It is my dream to one day spend time in Africa in some capacity.

There is a lot of human suffering in Africa, but that is not the whole story of Africa. Human suffering is also occuring on every other continent. I've seen stories about people living in garbage dumps in Central America and India. People elsewhere--and in our own country--live by collecting what others throw away. It is a truly profound difference in the standard of living among the members of the human family.

The photographs in the link above are difficult to look at. You can see how filthy the people are, how their skin is not healthy, and how desperate they are to attend to just the most basic human needs like quieting a hungry stomach or fending off the cold. The images of children and the elderly are particularly difficult to see.

There were two parts of the article that most made an impression on me.

First, the photographer talked about the generosity of the people he encountered at this trash dump. He said, "Despite all the circumstances of how they live, they keep on showing their kindness and happiness and hospitality. We don't find these human qualities in many places in the world."

Later, in conclusion, the photograph said, "The life we waste everyday because we want a better one or because we are never satisfied with it, is the life that many wish and yearn to have and would give everything to have it."

I think these two points are very profound and worth pondering.

Luke 6:21, 25
Blessed are ye that hunger now, for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now, for ye shall laugh.
Woe unto you that are full, for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now, for ye shall mourn and weep.

More on the Victims of Famine in East Africa

As a follow-up to the prior post, another article about the plight of our brothers and sisters in Eastern Africa recently got my attention. The article involves the horrific choice parents have to make to leave sick and dying children behind to try to get siblings to relief centers.

The article is available at the link below.

http://news.yahoo.com/tortured-choice-famine-child-lives-170128855.html

I don’t really have anything to add. The anguish of a parent forced to make such a decision is unimaginable. My heart breaks at the suffering of my brothers and sisters.

Luke 10:30-37

Jesus replied, “A man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho. He encountered thieves, who stripped him naked, beat him up, and left him near death. Now it just so happened that a priest was also going down the same road. When he saw the injured man, he crossed over to the other side of the road and went on his way. Likewise, a Levite came by that spot, saw the injured man, and crossed over to the other side of the road and went on his way. A Samaritan, who was on a journey, came to where the man was. But when he saw him, he was moved with compassion. The Samaritan went to him and bandaged his wounds, tending them with oil and wine. Then he placed the wounded man on his own donkey, took him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day, he took two full days’ worth of wages and gave them to the innkeeper. He said, ‘Take care of him, and when I return, I will pay you back for any additional costs.’ What do you think? Which one of these three was a neighbor to the man who encountered thieves?”
Then the legal expert said, “The one who demonstrated mercy toward him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

The Decline of CNN and Hard News

In our country, our news is delivered largely by for-profit media businesses. Their reporting is driven by the need to attract customers, i.e., readers, viewers, listeners. I’ve been worried for a while whether that model is compatible with the need for a well-informed citizenry. We as an electorate need to know what is going on in the world, in our country and in our communities so that we can form prudent opinions about policy and cast our ballots accordingly. But in the current age, we just aren’t getting enough information.

People blame the media, but in a for-profit model, the news outlets give us what we are most inclined to consume. If we prefer reading rumors about Jennifer Anniston’s love life or watching a report on a chain-smoking baby, that is the sort of thing the media will try to give us more frequently. By comparison, if we don’t tune in to learn more about the current humanitarian crisis along the Kenya-Somalia border or the structural issues causing unsustainable increases in our health care costs, then news outlets won’t give us as much of that. They give us what we’ll consume. And besides, it is more expensive to send reporters to remote regions in Africa or to investigate complicated economic issues than it is to pay some paparazzi to stalk celebrities.

I’m not saying that government funded media is the solution. Certainly, that approach has its own set of issues. But the profit-driven media approach we have is problematic and flawed.

I was particularly reminded of that point recently when I listened to an NPR report on the plight of CNN. The report is available at the following link:

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/01/137538689/new-cnn-news-chief-takes-stock

Our family canceled cable years ago and we don’t watch much TV except when we travel. I hadn’t realized that CNN’s ratings have become a casualty of the clash of the Fox News and MSNBC echo chambers. Per the report, CNN has tried to stay neutral and focus on actual reporting. Their forte is apparently delivering news. But apparently people aren’t tuning in for that. They would rather opt for the loud, bombastic talking heads of Fox News and MSNBC.

This really depresses me. As consumers of news and as citizens of the world’s oldest modern democracy, we can’t allow this situation to continue. We are so incredibly fortunate to live in our country. With great blessings come great responsibility.

Luke 12:48

“For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.”

“On The Media” and “Echo Chambers”

Another “On the Media” show recently was really fascinating. It involved the concept of “echo chambers.”

For those who are unfamiliar with it, the World English Dictionary defines the term “echo chamber” as follows:

“Also called: reverberation chamber a room with walls that reflect sound. It is
used to make acoustic measurements and as a source of reverberant sound to be
mixed with direct sound for recording or broadcasting.”

The term “echo chamber” has been used in recent years to describe the concept that in our modern society people have so many choices about where to get information, and they are often choosing to get their information from sources that express beliefs or perspectives that are similar or identical to their own. Per this use of the term “echo chamber,” people who are disgruntled right-wingers listen to Rush or Bill to get their news because those gentlemen will put a conservative spin pleasing to their audience. Alternately, such members of the public may read books by Glenn or Ann for the same reasons. Along the same lines, the concept is that liberals will listen to Steven or Jon, or read a book by Al, or watch a film by Michael to get a spin on world events, with which they agree.

Previous discussions I’ve heard on the “echo chamber” concept essentially blame the news consumer. The standard antidote is that we should consume news from sources that at least try to provide a more objective presentation of events. It is also advocated that we should make a conscious effort to listen to viewpoints with which we do not agree.

However, the recent “On the Media” program on echo chambers explored the possibility that there may be behind-the-scenes efforts via the internet to personalized content such that there may be an echo chamber effect that we do not even realize. Despite our best efforts, we may not be escaping our own echo chamber. It was a fascinating program. The link below will allow you to access the report.

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2011/06/17/06

Job 5:3

I have seen the foolish taking root [and outwardly prospering], but suddenly I saw that his dwelling was cursed [for his doom was certain].

“On the Media” and “Internet Facts”

Recently, “On the Media” examined a sensational, horrifying news story that traveled quickly around the world, but turned out to not be true. The “On the Media” piece explored the increasingly blurry line between television news reporting and social media. In internet-based “news,” fact-checking standards are often much looser or even non-existent. But the public is not always savvy about that. In that context, something that is completely false can become widely recognized as a “fact,” thus the coining of the term “internet fact.”

In listening to the “On the Media” report, it seemed to me that as news consumers we are often too believing. And it seems that is even more the case when the “news” source is one like social media. We need to be less trusting and we need to think critically about the media we consume—regardless of its source. But we need to be particularly skeptical when the source is an informal one where the authority in question may or may not have thoroughly investigated the claims it is making.

The transcript of the “On the Media” report is available below.
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2011/06/10/01

Proverbs 14:18

Foolish dreamers live in a world of illusion; wise realists plant their feet on the ground.

“On the Media” Radio Program

I’m usually running around on the weekends, but sometimes when I’m in the car running errands or if I’m cooking in the kitchen, I turn on NPR and catch some of their weekend programming. One of my all-time favorite NPR programs—but one that I catch least frequently due to its afternoon weekend broadcast timing—is the “On the Media” program with Brooke Gladstone.

“On the Media” is an hour long radio program that analyzes how the media report the news. As the show’s website declares:

“On the Media” explores how the media 'sausage' is made, casts an incisive eye
on fluctuations in the marketplace of ideas, and examines threats to the freedom
of information and expression in America and abroad. For one hour a week, the
show tries to lift the veil from the process of "making media," especially news
media, because it's through that lens that we literally see the world and the
world sees us.

See http://www.onthemedia.org/about/.

I love the way that paragraph sums up the show. Because the media has such a critical role in shaping how we all think about different topics and ultimately the political policies we do or do not support, it is important for us as a society to think critically about the way the media do their job and how news is presented to us.

But the paragraph above is not just a bunch of clever words. The radio pieces are insightful and I often think about them for long periods of time afterwards. The next couple of posts will flag “On the Media” reports that I found particularly thought provoking.

Isaiah 21:6

This is what the Lord says to me:
“Go, post a lookout and have him report what he sees.

Border Ministries

This post follows up on the prior one, which discussed the recent Border Forum at my church. This post includes more information about various Christian ministries and efforts to raise consciousness of the humanitarian tragedy along the border.

The Episcopal Diocese of Arizona has a Border Ministries program. The link below has information at it. The members of my church who visited the border recently indicate the program consists of just one priest and a few interns.

http://www.ebm.azdiocese.org/

The Reverend Seth Polley (who shepherds St. John’s parish in Bisbee and St. Stephen’s in Douglas) is very active in border issues and leads that Border Ministries program. The website for St. John’s is available at the link below.

http://stjohns.azdiocese.org/

Reverend Polley has had a blog, which is available at the link below. It has not been kept current, but his perspective is interesting to read.

http://seteo.wordpress.com/

The Presbyterian church has also been active in border ministries. They have founded “Frontera de Cristo,” which can be translated as “Christ’s Border.” Frontera de Cristo is a vibrant program with opportunities for short term and longer term service projects, and various outreach and advocacy efforts. During their trip to the border, my fellow congregants learned about the Café Justo cooperative program for fair trade coffee development in Mexico. Frontera de Christo also hosts the weekly precession in the desert that I referenced in the prior post. Take a look at the organization’s website below; they have some insightful pictures and information about things that are happening along the border.

http://www.fronteradecristo.org/

My fellow congregants also visited a clinic in Naco on the Mexico side of the border. The link below contains some information about that clinic, which is sponsored by Christians on the American side of the border.

http://stmary.azdiocese.org/digital_faith/news/233

Members of my church also visited the desert near the border and learned of the work of a non-denominational faith-based organization called “Humane Borders,” which helps to alleviate the suffering and prevent the deaths of migrants. Among the organization’s activities, they have established a network of water stations where migrants can get clean water while they are in the desert and exposed to brutal conditions. The organization’s website is available at the link below.

http://www.humaneborders.org/

Finally, my fellow congregants visited the Centro de Atención al Migrante Exodus (“CAME”) in Agua Prieta on the Mexico side of the border. It is a ministry of the Catholic church and provides short-term food and a place to stay for people who have attempted unsuccessfully to migrate to the U.S. In recent years, the U.S. Border Patrol has returned migrants to Mexico, but to a different place than their point of entry into the United States. As a result, the returned migrants are often disoriented and even unsure where along the border they have landed. CAME meets the acute needs of such migrants as they attempt to figure out what to do next. The link below is an old article, but contains a brief mention of the CAME ministry in Agua Prieta.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1708

Exodus 12:49

There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.


Leviticus 19:33

When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.


Leviticus 25:35

If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you.

Changes Along the Arizona-Sonora Border

I live several hours from the Arizona-Sonora border. To date, I’ve never crossed the Arizona-Sonora border. In part that is because I’ve been busy and I’ve only lived in Arizona a few years. But in part I’ve never crossed into Sonora because I follow the lead of my neighbors. I know plenty of people in the metro Phoenix area who used to enjoy going to towns like Nogales and Rocky Point, but no longer feel safe doing so. Security on the Mexico side of the border has deteriorated significantly in the last few years.

Several months ago I was touched by a report on NPR by Claudio Sanchez. Apparently, Mr. Sanchez (a regular contributor to NPR) is originally from Nogales, Sonora. In the report, he described changes to his home town.

The link below contains that report:

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/30/131859639/once-a-mexican-tourist-town-now-no-man-s-land

Psalm 27:1
The Lord is my light and my salvation; I will fear no one. The Lord protects me from all danger; I will never be afraid.

The Changing Dynamics of the El Paso-Juárez Metropolis

Our family lives in the metro Phoenix area. Our home is located several hours from the U.S.-Mexico border. When we drive to visit our relatives in Texas, we drive along the border at various times. In El Paso, especially, we come very close to the border, and we can see people on the Mexico side in their Juárez neighborhoods.

In the past 5-10 years, El Paso has changed so much. The tourist brochures used to give information about crossing the border to go to Juárez for shopping, dining, bar hopping and cultural diversions. That is no longer the case. The tourist brochures now discreetly advise visitors to visit the State Department website to study current warnings before crossing the border.

Over the years, I have had friends and family in El Paso, and we used to love going to Juárez for lunch or to go shopping. It was a lot of fun and we felt safe. But that is no longer the case. The last time my husband and I crossed the border to visit Juárez was around 2002.

In recent years, the middle class merchants and professionals, as well as the affluent in Juárez, have been abandoning the city and moving to El Paso. The residential real estate market in El Paso has been catering to Juareños, and there is a flurry of new businesses on the U.S. side of the border as merchants from Juárez establish new businesses in their new hometown. This exodus has been devastating to the Mexico side of the border metropolis. But I don’t see how anyone could blame the people fleeing Juárez. The scale of the violence is astounding.

In 2007, Juárez had 307 homicides. In 2008, there were 1,600. In 2009 there were 2,600.

Beyond Juárez, nearly 24,000 people have been killed in all of Mexico since late 2006 when Felipe Calderón became president and began to wage war on the Mexican drug cartels. Nearly 24,000 human beings. That is about twice as many people in my husband’s hometown.

The links below include some insightful journalism on the situation in the El Paso- Juárez urban area:

http://www.elpasotimes.com/juarez/ci_16518734

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125427225

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/14/131765609/amid-unrest-juarez-symphony-orchestra-plays-on

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/28/132370340/mexican-teens-in-different-worlds-share-tragic-fate

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/30/133348396/Juarez-Erupts-Not-In-Violence-But-In-Protest

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1966988

Job 3:25 Everything I fear and dread comes true. Psalm 91:5 You need not fear any dangers at night or sudden attacks during the day.

Terry Goddard on Arizona’s Growing Reputation as the “New Mississippi”

Terry Goddard was the Democratic challenger to Jan Brewer in the 2010 Arizona governor’s race. Mr. Goddard served as Arizona’s Attorney General from 2002 until 2011. He had also been the mayor of Phoenix from 1983 until 1990.

When our family first moved to Arizona several years ago, there were several prominent Democrats serving the state, and moderate Republican John McCain was the state’s most famous member of Congress. By 2010, the state had become more and more dominated by Republicans and partisan, conservative politics. Even though Mr. Goddard seemed to have done a good job as Attorney General and had strong credentials, the Democratic label seemed toxic in his gubernatorial campaign. After the primary results were announced, the local newscasts were already proclaiming that Mr. Goddard had no shot at winning and Jan Brewer would serve another term as governor. Even when Governor Brewer embarrassed herself (and the state) with an incoherent performance in the gubernatorial debate, she was a shoo-in simply because she was the Republican nominee. The links below have some coverage of the debate fiasco. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Governors/2010/0903/Jan-Brewer-debate-gaffe-How-badly-will-it-hurt-her-chances

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/sep/03/arizona-governor-debate-jan-brewer

I voted for Mr. Goddard in the primary and in the general election, though in my heart it did seem like a pointless exercise. I guess I am used to such experiences. When my husband and I first moved from Texas and went to the Arizona DMV, the woman who processed our license and voter registration paperwork was visibly surprised at a few details of applications. She said that she didn’t realize there were any Democrats in Texas and asked how that worked. We admitted we were used to being in the political minority in our home state. And now we are finding that we continue to be in the political minority in our adopted state. Terry Goddard left office as Attorney General at the end of December. Arizona no longer has any non-Republicans in state-wide elected office. Not long before he left office, I listened to an interview with Mr. Goddard, which raised even more my admiration for him as he spoke insightfully and pragmatically about the issues facing Arizona. In the interview, Mr. Goddard shared insights about the current border issues and Arizona’s growing reputation as the “new Mississippi” because of enactment of S.B. 1070. The link below contains that interview.

http://kjzz.org/news/arizona/archives/201012/hn_goddardcareer

Psalm 43:3 Send your light and your truth; may they lead me and bring me back to Zion, your sacred hill, and to your Temple, where you live.

Arizona and Birthright Citizenship

Last spring Arizona made national and even international news by enacting S.B. 1070, which mandates police to inquire into the immigration status of people under certain circumstances. That bill received a lot of negative attention nationally and in Mexico, but is credited with resurrecting Jan Brewer’s sagging poll numbers and landing her a second term as Arizona’s governor.

Despite budget woes of historic proportions, this spring the Arizona Legislature has taken its attention from serious issues involving the funding of education and health care for the poor to consider other bills targeting undocumented migrants. Illustratively, two companion bills were drafted to challenge the long-standing interpretation of the fourteenth amendment, which provides so-called “birthright citizenship.”

“Birthright citizenship” is a phrase that refers to the acquisition of U.S. citizenship by virtue of one’s birth, as contrasted to acquisition of citizenship by naturalization after birth. It is important to note that there are actually two different types of birthright citizenship. One can attain birthright citizenship by jus soli or jus sanguinis.

The latter term (jus sanguinis) refers to the bestowing of citizenship by being born to a parent who is American. If a person is born and at least one of his/her parents was an American citizen, then that person is also given U.S. citizenship, regardless of where they are born.

The former term (jus soli) refers to the granting of citizenship to anyone born in the territory of the United States. Even if neither parent is American (i.e., such that jus sanguinis is not possible), a child born in the United States will be a U.S. citizen. If a non-American woman gives birth on U.S. soil while on vacation or while working or studying here temporarily, her child is granted American citizenship. That has historically been the case regardless of the mother’s immigration status.

Though the recent Arizona legislation had been described as attacking “birthright citizenship,” to be clear, the proposed bills would only have challenged the interpretation of the fourteenth amendment granting citizenship via jus soli. The bills were not in any way challenging the practice of jus sanguinis, which is technically another form of birthright citizenship.

It is interesting to understand the approach to citizenship taken in other countries. Most countries emphasize jus sanguinis because racial or ethnic identity is considered to be a critical means of establishing national identity. Indeed, jus soli is relatively uncommon in the world. Currently, less than 20% of the countries in the world grant citizenship under the concept of jus soli. The United States is the largest exception to this rule. Most of the other countries on that list are in North or South America. One’s family can live for generations in some European countries, for example, without ever being granted citizenship.

To me, it makes sense and is a source of pride that the United States is one of the primary examples of jus solis citizenship. With the exception of native Americans, we are a nation of immigrants. We may come from many different places of origin, but once we’re here, we’re supposed to all be on the same footing. The links below contain some news coverage of the recent failed attempt by the Arizona legislature to challenge the long-standing interpretation of the fourteenth amendment:

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/local_news/hear_me_out/is-birthright-citizenship-bill-good-or-bad-for-arizona

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/02/22/20110222arizona-immigration-birthright-citizenship-bill-advances.html

http://www.azdailysun.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_af978376-e08d-552b-804b-38eb3da8b5c5.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/17/arizona-senate-rejects-birthright-citizenship-bills/

Deuteronomy 10:18

"He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing.”

Rush Limbaugh’s Comments about Michelle Obama

After I became aware of Governor Palin and Representative Bachmann’s panning of Michelle Obama’s efforts against childhood obesity and in support of breastfeeding, I read about Rush Limbaugh’s comments. The link below contains an article explaining his views.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110222/ts_yblog_theticket/rush-limbaugh-says-first-lady-is-no-swimsuit-model

If Mr. Limbaugh believes that Ms. Obama has been hypocritical, I think that is fair game for commentary. If he thinks her conduct doesn’t live up to what she is preaching, that is one thing. I don’t know that I would agree with him, but Mr. Limbaugh is certainly entitled to his opinion.

I don’t understand that Ms. Obama has advocated that we never ever indulge in foods that aren’t healthy. I’ve heard interviews where she admits a penchant for French fries, but she indicates she is careful to not eat them often or in great quantity. She advocates healthier foods to be the mainstay of one’s diet. Personally, I haven’t seen evidence of hypocrisy, but I’m a busy person and haven’t studied the White House dietary choices in detail. Maybe I’m wrong and Mr. Limbaugh is right on this point.

I think Mr. Limbaugh has a right to point out hypocrisy if he thinks he’s spotted it, but I think it is completely undignified, unhelpful, mean-spirited and hypocritical for Mr. Limbaugh to make snarky comments about Ms. Obama’s qualifications as a swimsuit model. Indeed, Ms. Obama’s emphasis is improving the health of our nation’s children, and I think most people understand that swimsuit models are not necessarily the best role models for healthy living. For a variety of reasons, I don’t want swimsuit models to be role models my children try to emulate. Many other parents feel the same.

But if hypocrisy is Mr. Limbaugh’s concern, then there is of course tremendous irony in Mr. Limbaugh of all people harping on another human being for perceived imperfections in physique. Politely put, Mr. Limbaugh is a heavy set man. He has himself struggled with his weight for a very long time. I don’t know Mr. Limbaugh personally, but for as long as I’ve been aware of him (about twenty years), he is has been pretty overweight. Impressively, he has been successful in losing a good deal of weight in recent years. Nonetheless, I understand this is an on-going effort and he is not yet to his ideal weight.

Because of Mr. Limbaugh’s own serious weight issues, it boggles my mind that he would ever say ugly things about someone else’s physique. I myself am sorely tempted to say something snarky about Mr. Limbaugh’s own qualifications as a swimsuit model. I will refrain from doing so. Snarkiness is compatible with neither Christ’s commandment to love our neighbor nor the Christian value of humility.

Sadly, Mr. Limbaugh has a history of judging women on their appearance. He has famously described feminism as a strategy to “to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.” See link below.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200508160001

Additionally, Mr. Limbaugh famously popularized the delightful term “feminazi.” I understand he has since distanced himself from the term.

In my opinion, such rhetoric is incredibly demeaning and disrespectful of women. Mr. Limbaugh is a media celebrity and in essence an entertainer. Maybe he doesn’t mean any of the things he says. Perhaps he has a great deal of respect for women and just says such things because it makes him richer. I frankly have no idea.

Genesis 1:26-28 (The Message)

God spoke: "Let us make human beings in our image, make them
reflecting our nature
So they can be responsible for the fish in the sea,
the birds in the air, the cattle,
And, yes, Earth itself,
and every animal that moves on the face of Earth."
God created human beings;
he created them godlike,
Reflecting God's nature.
He created them male and female.
God blessed them:
"Prosper! Reproduce! Fill Earth! Take charge!
Be responsible for fish in the sea and birds in the air,
for every living thing that moves on the face of Earth."

Mike Huckabee Weighs In

(Sorry. I just couldn’t resist the pun in the title of this blog post. For diehard pun-haters, I encourage you to stop rolling your eyes and just try to keep reading. No more puns. I promise.)

As mentioned previously in this blog, I have tended to have more respect for Mike Huckabee than other conservative politicians and media pundits. This may surprise some of my progressive friends who may view the former Arkansas governor as just another GOP politician turned well-paid Fox News pundit. My attitude towards Governor Huckabee may even surprise my more conservative friends and family, who love me though I’m sure they perennially wonder how a nice gal like me could be a registered Democrat.

In part, my attitude towards Governor Huckabee is based on the fact that he is a committed Christian. Certainly there are plenty of other conservative celebrities who also profess to be committed Christians, for whom my enthusiasm is admittedly much more measured. And there are certainly many areas where I disagree with Governor Huckabee. But as I’ve followed his career in the media, I’ve been left with the impression of a good deal of sincerity and integrity.

It is hard for me to put my finger on exactly what has created this impression of Governor Huckabee in me. However, I can offer that it is always deeply, deeply offensive to me when politicians of any ideological persuasion exploit their religious faith for short-term political gain. By contrast, I admire politicians who seem to try to integrate their faith into their secular work in a humble and non-exploitive manner. When I listen to Governor Huckabee in interviews, my sense is that he is sincere about trying to integrate his faith and politics. (In my opinion, Senator Sam Brownback is another person who fits into that category.)

Because of my respect for Governor Huckabee, it caught my eye when I read that he had defended Michelle Obama’s efforts to combat childhood obesity. The links below provide articles on his public comments.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/02/mike_huckabee_defends_michelle.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0211/Huck_No_obesity_fight_with_Palin_Bachmann.html

As a general matter, I appreciate Governor Huckabee’s defense of Ms. Obama’s efforts. But his words have particular gravitas because Governor Huckabee was himself once morbidly obese and had serious health problems as a result. He has since lost a tremendous amount of weight and has participated in several marathons. Those are amazing, laudatory accomplishments.

I also appreciate the specific words the governor chose in defending Ms. Obama:

"I still think her approach is the right one. I do not think that she is out there advocating that the government take over our dinner plates. In fact, she has not. She has been criticized unfairly by a lot of my fellow conservatives. I think it is out of a reflex rather than out of a thoughtful expression, and that is one of the things that bug me most about the political environment of the day."

Amen, governor. One thing I have admired about Mike Huckabee (along with a handful of other individuals) is that he does not always mindlessly defend his political party, and he does not demonize those on the other side of the aisle. I appreciate that he will express publicly disagreement with what fellow Republicans say in their political rhetoric.

I also agree with Governor Huckabee’s point that in the current political environment people condemn their political opponents “out of a reflex” instead of “out of a thoughtful expression.” My own observation is that conservatives do that more frequently. Indeed, that is the bread and butter of talk radio and Fox News Channel. And GOP politicians follow suit. But I certainly agree that those on the left often do the same thing. In my perspective, they do it in reaction to try to keep up with the conservatives. But that is still no excuse.

Regardless of who began it, this approach of criticizing political opponents “out of a reflex” is so deeply damaging to our nation. Reflexive criticism means you aren’t really listening to the other side, and you are not trying to find common ground. That probably works fine in a dictatorship or in a fascist state. But in a country that operates on democratic principles and that is facing huge problems in need of solutions, that dysfunctionality has no place.

Ezekiel 16:42 (Young's Literal Translation)

And I have caused My fury against thee to rest, And My jealousy hath turned aside from thee, And I have been quiet, and I am not angry any more.

Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann Pan Michelle Obama

My last post focused belatedly on Rush Limbaugh’s take on Thanksgiving. In my mind, that ridiculous rant was yet another of the seemingly endless examples of angry people on the right spewing anger to serve no productive purpose. Mr. Limbaugh and people like him spew their anger to attract listeners or adherents, but then never seem to do anything productive with their followers. They just encourage people to gripe and indulge in self-righteousness and/or self-pity. And sometimes such media celebrities frankly start to run out of material to spark outrage, so they have to really get inventive and dig deep to find something new. To me, Mr. Limbaugh’s silly rant against Mr. Obama’s expression of gratitude to the Native Americans on the occasion of Thanksgiving is evidence of that desperation to continually find a source of fuel for unproductive anger and outrage Similar examples of such desperation can be found in recent rhetoric by Governor Sarah Palin and Representative Michele Bachmann as they pan First Lady Michelle Obama.

Ms. Obama has been trying to champion non-partisan issues that impact many Americans. One of the main causes she has championed has been the fight against childhood obesity. She has been promoting the eating of veggies, portion control and leading an active lifestyle. She has visited schools, appeared on the Disney Channel and cultivated a garden at the White House in support of this cause.

I personally appreciate Ms. Obama taking on this issue. My husband and I have both always struggled with our weight. We dreaded P.E. because we were never any good at the sports played and were last to be picked for teams. Our childhood memories are full of fast food and many hours watching T.V. We both want something different for our kids. We work hard to include a lot of fresh produce in our family’s diet, and to limit sweets and fried foods to occasional treats. And though my husband and I both loathe sports, we try to hide that fact from our kids and to encourage them to get plenty of exercise. Beyond their soccer teams and dance lessons, as a family we all go hiking, bike riding, and swimming together throughout the year. Despite my own sedentary work life, I also try to set a good example for my kids by regularly putting my treadmill to its intended use instead of using it as a coat rack (which frankly would be my natural preference if little eyes weren’t looking up to me).

I also appreciate Ms. Obama taking on the issue of childhood obesity because I have seen firsthand what a huge problem it is in our country. When I taught grade school, I had a lot of obese children in my classes. It always broke my heart. The health consequences of obesity are serious. Many of the students I taught had family members with diabetes. A few of my students had themselves already developed the disease. Beyond the health issues, I also felt for the obese students in my classes because they were socially ostracized at times despite my best efforts to intervene and encourage everyone to be friends. Children can be cruel.

So, yeah, for Michelle Obama. I’m so glad she has taken on this challenging issue. And one would think that everyone would rally around her in a nonpartisan manner. Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee both have championed the cause. It seems like a no-brainer. I mean, no one is pro-childhood obesity, are they? Even if you have no intrinsic concern for the human suffering involved, from just a detached, economic point of view childhood obesity is a very bad thing. In this age of out-of-control health care costs, no one could possibly think rising rates of juvenile diabetes are a good thing, right?

Well, instead of being supportive of Ms. Obama’s efforts, Sarah Palin has chosen to make snarky public comments attacking the First Lady. Apparently, per Governor Palin, Ms. Obama needs to get off our collective backs. Governor Palin has always been slim and athletic, so maybe she hasn’t noticed that we have a nation of obese folks. The status quo has not worked. As a result, maybe it is not the end of the world to talk about this problem publicly and bring attention to it. I’m disappointed in Governor Palin’s attitude on this issue. Her ugly comments seem to have no purpose other than to encourage the anger of those prone to taking offense easily. The comments are not productive and do not in any way help solve the problem of childhood obesity.

For more information on Governor Palin’s comments, see the article in the link below:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/21/earlyshow/living/parenting/main7171134.shtml

Recently, Representative Michele Bachmann has jumped in along a similar vein. Ms. Obama made comments supportive of breastfeeding and making it easier for mothers who choose that for their infants. She has noted the evidence that breastfed children are less likely to be obese, so these comments are part of her efforts to fight childhood obesity. I frankly hadn’t heard about her comments, but good for her. Most women work outside the home these days, but logistically it is extremely difficult to breastfeed when you are not with your infant during the day. Again, who is against breastfeeding? What is wrong with Ms. Obama encouraging breastfeeding? Unless you work for a company making baby formula, I’m thinking no one could really be against it. Again, it should be a no brainer.

Michele Bachmann is even pro-breastfeeding. She has shared publically that she breastfed all five of her children. Good for her. Good for her kids. That is wonderful. But despite being in the pro-breastfeeding camp, Representative Bachmann finds fault in Ms. Obama encouraging others to breastfeed. Somehow such encouragement from the White House is a bad thing. A former tax lawyer, Representative Bachmann is also irate that modest tax incentives might be available in to help women who want to pump breast milk when they work outside the home. Per Representative Bachmann, this is all apparently evidence of a “nanny state.” I’m glad that Representative Bachmann was able to be with her five children in person to breastfeed them and/or to buy her own breast pump to provide them with breast milk when she was not with them. Not all women are financially able to do such things.
For more information on Representative Bachmann’s comments, see the article at the link below:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/02/18/20110218michelle-obama-breast-feeding-remarks-criticism18-ON.html

I find the attacks on Ms. Obama to be ridiculous. It is a good thing to encourage people to do things to benefit their health. That is particularly true when we live in a nation of folks suffering from diseases that are preventable and when we are in the midst of an unsustainable escalation in health care costs.

And Ms. Obama’s campaigns against childhood obesity and her comments in support of breastfeeding are certainly not unusual when looking at the work of her predecessors. Was Nancy Reagan being paternalistic (or maternalistic) when she encouraged kids to “just say no” to drugs? Were Barbara and Laura Bush pushing a nanny state when they were encouraging people to learn to read and patronize libraries, respectively?

Clearly there are a whole lot of Americans who use illegal narcotics and their lives are ruined as a consequence. But maybe First Ladies just shouldn’t get involved. Perhaps we ought to have told Nancy Reagan to get off our backs in the 1980s when she spoke out. The nerve. Lecturing us about drug use.

As First Lady, Barbara Bush used her platform to promote literacy. Maybe she should have just backed off. Maybe the folks who are unable to read just don’t like phonics. This is a free country. Step off, sister! Let us live in ignorance.

More recently, Laura Bush used her influence as First Lady to increase the funding of libraries. How dare she?! What meddling. We didn’t need her interference. We knew how much funding libraries needed without her butting in.

Obviously, the last three paragraphs have been sarcastic. That is how silly these recent attacks on Ms. Obama have been. What is Ms. Obama supposed to do? Is she not allowed to take on any causes? How pathetic that even nonpartisan efforts against childhood obesity and in favor of breast feeding can be manipulated to rile up the masses.

I feel frustrated that these types of manipulation have been so successful. It is just not productive and it is ugly. Clearly, as a nation, we did not achieve greatness by sitting around whining and indulging in pointless anger over minor points. That is not how we established the first modern democracy, stormed the beaches of Normandy to liberate Europe from fascism, developed a vaccine against polio or developed the internet. We Americans are better than that.

Job 26:2

"What a help you are to the weak!
How you have saved the arm without strength!”

Rush Limbaugh Explains the True Meaning of Thanksgiving

It is late, but I recently became aware of Rush Limbaugh’s rant on President Obama’s Thanksgiving expression of respect and gratitude to the Native Americans.

The article below contains Mr. Limbaugh’s comments:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/11/25/2010-11-25_rush_limbaugh_slams_president_barack_obamas_thanksgiving_declaration_thanking_na.html?obref=obinsite

Mr. Limbaugh seems to deny that the European Pilgrims were in any way imperfect or that the Native Americans were/are in any way admirable. After calling President Obama’s expression of appreciation to the Native Americans as a “wildly distorted” view of the historical significance of the holiday, Mr. Limbaugh summed up his own beliefs about Thanksgiving. He explained that the “true story of Thanksgiving is how socialism failed.” He added that “the Indians didn't teach us capitalism" and "we shared our bounty with them… because we first failed as socialists."

How nice of Mr. Limbaugh to set us straight. Previously, I had always believed the point of Thanksgiving was for us to express gratitude to our omnipotent, loving and every-faithful God for the gifts he has bestowed upon us.

Philippians 4:6

Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.

Colossians 4:2

Devote yourselves to prayer, keeping alert in it with an attitude of thanksgiving.

Obstructionist Politics and the Filibuster

The United States Senate website defines “filibuster” as:

Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.

See http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/filibuster.htm.

Currently, sixty of the one hundred members of the Senate must vote to end a filibuster. The filibuster procedure has traditionally been viewed as a way to protect the minority party in the Senate. It preserves some of the minority’s influence so that the majority party does not have free reign to do whatever they want with unfettered discretion. The filibuster is essentially a check against majority domination.

In recent years, the filibuster has been at the heart of nasty political squabbles and its future has come into question. A few years ago, the then-majority Republican Party threatened to end the filibuster procedure. The “nuclear option,” as it was dubbed by then-Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, would have changed the Senate’s procedural rules to allow a simple majority to end a filibuster. In 2005, then-Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee threatened to use the nuclear option due to the inability to confirm some of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees.

The Republicans’ threat was prompted because ten of President Bush’s judicial nominees were blocked by the Democrats, who charged those candidates were extremists. The then-minority Democrats in the Senate had allowed over two hundred of President Bush’s judicial nominees to be confirmed. So, in actuality, the nuclear option was threatened over the Democrats’ opposition to a relatively small number of judicial nominees. The links below describe the 2005 controversy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701425.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june05/filibuster_5-16.html

http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2005/05/12/nuclear_option_primer/

Senator Frist even took the issue to the Conservative Christian community and claimed that the filibusters were aimed at people of faith. The links below contain reports on Senator Frist’s campaigning.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4618019

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june05/judges_4-25.html

The 2005 crisis was resolved with a compromise of sorts by the “Gang of 14”—a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican senators who made a pact to oppose the nuclear option, as well as the filibuster of judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances. In essence, the Senate Democrats saved the filibuster in 2005 by promising to not use it. The link below contains a report on the compromise.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4663306

It is probably fortunate for the Republicans that they did not use the nuclear option. Shortly after the threats of the nuclear option, the Republicans became the minority party in the Senate. In the 2006 elections, they lost control of the Senate.

Neither Lott nor Frist are still in the Senate at the present time. Senator Lott resigned from Senate leadership in 2002 after making racially insensitive and ignorant remarks about Strom Thurmond’s platform in his presidential campaign in 1948 as a Dixiecrat. He remained in the Senate until 2007, when he resigned to pursue a career in lobbying. Senator Frist had had a long and successful career as a surgeon before entering politics. He was first elected to the Senate in 1995 and resigned in 2007. He has since continued his medical career by teaching at Vanderbilt University and being involved in various charities with a health care focus.

Since becoming the minority party in the Senate, the Republicans have embraced a new-found admiration for the filibuster procedure. They have used it a record number of times in recent years. In the past two years alone, there have been eighty-nine filibusters.

Although they are not proposing the “nuclear option,” this gridlock has led the current majority-Democrats to consider some more modest reforms of the filibuster procedure to make it more transparent. The report below provides some of the details of the Democrats’ current concerns about the filibuster:

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/03/132631424/Senate-Democrats-Propose-Filibuster-Changes

The wisdom of the filibuster procedure continues to be a controversial device. It is a thorn in the side of the majority party and a cherished tool of the minority. The link below contains a debate from 2005 on the wisdom of the filibuster. The text includes arguments both in favor and against the existence of the filibuster.

http://www.npr.org/takingissue/20050324_takingissue_judicial.html

About a year ago, Professor Gregory Koger was interviewed by Terry Gross on the radio program “Fresh Air” to discuss the filibuster procedure and Professor Koger’s book Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122945445

James 4:4-6 (The Message)

You're cheating on God. If all you want is your own way, flirting with the world every chance you get, you end up enemies of God and his way. And do you suppose God doesn't care? The proverb has it that "he's a fiercely jealous lover." And what he gives in love is far better than anything else you'll find. It's common knowledge that "God goes against the willful proud; God gives grace to the willing humble."

An Open Letter to Mr. Joseph Farah (Founder and CEO of WorldNetDaily)

Dear Mr. Farah,

You have honored me greatly by leaving a comment on my humble little blog. I am amazed that a man of such prominence with so many responsibilities would even take notice of my recent post and take time to provide feedback. Thank you very much.

Your comment expressed concern that it was inappropriate to mention in my prior post that WorldNetDaily had been founded with an “unabashedly conservative” viewpoint. That same blog post also indicated that WorldNetDaily’s purpose was "exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power." Both phrases were in quotes in my post because I understood these to be your words. If these quotes do not reflect your actual words and I have therefore inadvertently misquoted you, please accept my sincere apologies.

Since receiving your comment, I have modified the blog post in question to cite the sources where I found those quotes. The quote, to which you object, was found in two places: (1) on the Wikipedia page providing your biography and (2) in an article in the Los Angeles Times. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Farah#cite_ref-1990_WP_5-0. See Faye Fiore, “Raking Up Muck and Rolling in the Dough,” Los Angeles Times (Jan. 27, 2010). After reading your blog comment, I re-read those sources, and realized that quote was apparently referring only to the Sacramento Union. I apologize profusely for initially interpreting the quote more broadly, i.e., as describing all publications on which you worked subsequent to leaving the Los Angeles Herald Examiner.

Please know it is never my intention to promulgate untruths or to sow confusion. If I have unintentionally done so, I offer you my deepest apologies and I would like to extend to you the opportunity to set the record straight in greater detail on my blog. If at any time you would like to submit a guest blogger essay (of any length) about the quote in question, or to express a different opinion than I expressed about WorldNetDaily or the lack of civility in modern American political discourse, please contact me. I would be greatly honored to publish your thoughts as a guest blogger essay.

Respectfully and sincerely yours,
Your sister in Christ,
Claudine Pease-Wingenter

P.S. I am writing this note as an open-letter to you because you did not leave an e-mail address when you left your comment on my blog.