THE BIG FORUM. Last night, at OC Weekly’s “Navel Gazing,” reporter Eleanor Carmichael posted an amusing account of her big Saddleback Church adventure (RIDING LOW IN THE SADDLEBACK).Carmichael explains that “OC Weekly usually gets identified as ‘alternative’ media.” For last night’s extravaganza, it was demoted to “auxiliary,” which meant getting stuck in some obscure room somewhere to watch the Big Event on TV.
Heck, she shoulda stayed home and watched CNN.
Evidently, included in the “auxiliary” category were the San Francisco Chronicle, KNX Radio AM 1070, and the Register.
"So there I was, in the same building (or at least the same 120 acres) with the candidates, the cleric, and 3,000 folks who could either afford the ticket prices or had it in good with Rick Warren (not a big Obama crowd, to say the least.)"
The crunch of traffic and warm bodies after the forum was so bad that she didn’t even get to see what little protest action there was.She seemed to appreciate the pizza and Coke, however.
MEANWHILE, AT THE REG: Over at the OC Register’s ”Orange Punch,” the Reg’s summer editorial intern, one Mandie Russell, offered her impressions of the event. (Maybe she was sitting next to Carmichael in that little room. Dunno.)
She characterized Obama’s remarks as “smooth” and “down-to-earth,” though somewhat lacking in substance. He definitely “charmed the audience,” she says, despite its skewage rightward.
What about McCain?
”McCain made a point of addressing issues concisely, and with very clear stances, as opposed to Obama’s general attempts to go without offending either side. He definitely had, however, much more of a tendency for tangents, almost always involving war stories. Though usually applicable, these seemed more like prepared speeches, as opposed to on-the-spot answers to the specific questions…McCain did, however, certainly win the crowd-cheering contest, with most of his policy answers instantly obscured by applause.”
UPDATE: Despite Assurances, McCain Wasn’t in a ‘Cone of Silence’
OC Reg: McCain and Obama civil, not too revealing at church forum
VIDEO: The question of "evil"
REACTION: I actually missed most of the forum, having entirely forgotten about it until the last minute. Still, I did watch the instant analyses provided by the usual suspects on CNN and MSNBC. The conservatives among them seemed dazzled by McCain's "black and white" perspective on issues and his speed and decisiveness.
I kept thinking, "Um, you can be very black 'n' white, very fast, very decisive, and dead wrong." Evidently, the "right or wrong" question didn't come up for 'em.
Are we a nation of morons or what?
Meanwhile, some of the more liberal Opiners seemed impressed by Obama's "charm" and "humility," though somewhat uncomfortable with his stopping and thinking and actually responding to Warren, not the audience.Evidently, McCain pretty much used Warren as an electronic prompt, repeatedly turning away from the fellow and toward the audience—to tell his stories.
"Americans like stories," said one of the Opiners, clearly impressed by the Republican candidate's "performance."
Near as I can tell, the forum was indeed civil, but also about worthless.
THE BIG CARNIVAL
Very apt: scene from the great "Ace in the Hole" (1951):
Ace in the Hole is Billy Wilder's exploration of some of the acreage on humanity's dark side. About a small-time newspaper that hits a big story, it's amazingly hard-boiled, cynical, and funny. The hotshot newspaperman is monstrous, the public is moronic.
The other title to the movie: "The Big Carnival." You know, like the big forum.My favorite line from the movie: the character Lorraine (played beautifully by Jan Sterling) is asked to put on a show by praying for her man, who is stuck in a collapsed mine. Her answer:
"I don't pray. Kneeling bags my nylons."
In another scene, she says this about the reporter:
"I've met a lot of hard-boiled eggs in my time, but you—you're twenty minutes."
43 comments:
Love the movie lines!
One ignoramus was surprised that Warren "didn't seem offended" when Obama tweaked him for being a best-selling author and, therefore, a rich guy. No one mentioned that Warren gave away almost all of the money he made from that book, and even paid back the church for his salary for all the years he had been there. Few acts speak to someone's integrity like getting rid of money. Probably no writer, reader, or commenter on this blog has given away as much money, or as high of a percentage of his or her wealth as Warren has.
Roy thinks the forum was a waste of time. Note that Roy's comments tended to the style of the candidate's presentations. Roy likes "thoughtful," rather than "black and white." But anything on the Content of What They Were Saying, Roy? The two both talked about themselves personally, which is highly relevant for presidential candidates, as well as many extremely important issues, on which they advocate very different policies, and will have very different influences on the country. That wasn't valuable?
Other major media commentators pointed out that Warren's questions were very good, more intelligent than we get from most professional journalists. That alone makes the event interesting and valuable.
It seems to me that Warren is a really good man, full of integrity and concern about people and the world, and quite free of petty political partisanship. The forum he put on with the two candidates was a good thing, a contribution, and a real service to us. He brought people together and enabled the tension between the disagreeing members of the audience to be a healthy thing. The event helped us better understand the issues and the election, at least somewhat. It was unifying and educational, among other things.
From reading Roy's account of trying to get tickets, it appears Warren's church did mismanage ticket distribution. That's bad, but the bungling was done in the context of doing a significant good. That sort of thing happens when one tries to do something one is not used to doing, and this candidates' forum was unusual for Warren's church, to say the least. It's not the kind of thing they do-or anyone else--does every week. It's hard to organize that sort of thing, to satisfy everyone affected. Critics on that point should be more gracious.
As for the leftist whining from the likes of Carmichael, that all seems based on self-pity and resentment of the success and influence of Warren. Leftist cynicism is leftist self-justification. It is quickly recognizable, it gets old fast, and it grates.
The leftist, "alternative" criticism seems to have zero (0) moral value, perhaps even less.
Next time somebody tries to do something good, try just saying "Thank You" instead of flailing about in every conceivable way to see it as bad.
With all due respect to the authors, readers, and comment-makers on this blog--and remember that I am a big fan of Roy and DtB--I think we could all benefit from sitting at the feet of someone like Warren. He seems to be among the wisest and best of us. (Of course, people like Roy are too proud to be a "disciple" of anyone. But what if the person really is so superior to you that you could benefit from at least temporarily suspending the "flack" of your so-called "critical thinking" and be open enough to listen and learn? Ever considered "keeping your mouth shut and your ears open?" Isn't that what Critical Thinking would sometimes indicate? (And, again, remember, if this seems harsh, I am not someone swooping in here to upset the party--I have long read and admired DtB. My comments here still hold.)
(And no, I am not a Saddleback Church plant. I have never been there, and do not even know where it is.) (But I do intend to try to read Warren's book someday!)
Listen, 4:44, I’ve gone easy on Warren, having not bashed him, having even praised him (e.g., for his attempt to elevate discourse). My complaint re the ticket SNAFU are manifestly valid. Even a “good guy” can make mistakes when he wanders into unfamiliar territory, and yappers like me are God’s way (or nature’s way) of expediting improvement.
I do think that this event grew to something that Warren could no longer entirely control, and I sympathize. If I wanted to be nasty, believe me, I know how to do that. Warren’s questions may have been good (I did not witness much of the forum; I am working from highly edited news clips that I’ve seen), but it appears that he failed to head off yet another pander-fest. Mr. McCain has a long record, and his new enthusiasms, presented now in Evengelical churches, are, shall we say, stunningly convenient. Mr. Obama likely hoped only to seem unthreatening and adequately pious—he succeeded—yet he seemed to say nothing of importance (c. what we’ve already heard).
Upshot: nice try, Rick; no gold star.
I’ve had my eye on Warren for some time, and I’ve not entirely decided what to make of him, though I tend to agree that he’s good for religious America (and thus for the country), and I’m pleased that he’s emphasized love and community (I am a communitarian).
I don’t understand why you refer to Carmichael’s perfectly harmless coverage as “leftist whining.” OC Weekly strikes me as somewhat antiestablishmentarian, but not “leftist” (not consistently so). OC needs more, not less, critical scrutiny of the rich and the powerful. Leftist or not, the Weekly is just about the only game in town re journalism. (E.g., where were the Times and the Reg during the Carona disaster?)
We all have our starting points. All you can ask of someone is that they conduct themselves fairly from it, and I think we’ve done that. (My philosopher’s starting point makes the notion that I should consider being Warren’s “disciple” absurd. And that has nothing to do with “pride.” It has to do with my unwillingness to take the leap into belief-without-reasons. I ask myself: If I do that, how am I different from Shirley McLaine or Marshall Applewhite?)
When you say that I offer “so-called” critical thinking, you reveal that you are blind to continual efforts at my fair-mindedness. (I should mention that, often, readers confuse humor with criticism. You should hang out with my family. Everybody gets skewered. It's love.)
Your views, as expressed here, are way south of charitable.
In any case, we’ll continue to do what we do, calling ‘em as we see ‘im, doing the best we can. Meanwhile, others will carp anonymously from the sidelines as they always do.
Anonymous at 4:44 PM:
Roy's "complaint" about the ticket SNAFU is not valid, since he indeed had the opportunity to acquire one himself but chose not to do so.
Well, Roy, what set me off was your evaluation of the event as "about worthless." (Notice the quotation marks.) I cannot regard that as a fair-minded, rational, "philosophical" evaluation. It's a bit of your crap.
Let's see now. When I "skewer" you, my remarks are "way south of charitable." When you "skewer" me and other comment-makers on your beloved blog, you are acting as within a family, where "everybody gets skewed," and "it's love."
Got it.
Ten things above Obama's pay grade
In no particular order:
1. Cogency, concision, and conviction.
2. Ease of manner without a teleprompter.
3. Maintenance of American defense systems.
4. Pro-American assertions.
5. Rejection of moral and cultural relativism.
6. Decision-making.
7. Qualification to lead the United States.
8. Loyalty.
9. Respecting America and her symbols.
10. Understanding Christian doctrine.
Assertions are easy. Make a case, or go away.
"Assertions"? You already ADMITTED you had the link to purchase a ticket but didn't want to "waste" your time. Case closed.
OC Register, August 14: “For the past couple of weeks, the general public had been told via the church's Web site that ticket information would be forthcoming. Then last week, the message changed and said a limited number of tickets would be available this Wednesday. Monday night, the message was revised again, saying all tickets had been distributed.”
Sunday, 10:00PM, "carp(ing) anonymously" here again.
My remarks have more charity toward you than you imagine. You'll just have to take my word for that.
A carp is a kind of fish.
When I was at university in the 80s, the "Reverend" Moon's group was there too, recruiting converts at lunchtime. The acronym for their organization was CARP - does anyone remember what it stood for?
But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
(Matthew 5:44,45)
(different person "carping")
Are you denying that you had the link to purchase tickets on Tuesday?
A carp is a freshwater fish.
The anonymous "voices" are getting mixed up again. Be careful, 9:29. Roy called me "stupid" for quoting scripture to an atheist, and now you are doing the same thing! (I guess being called "stupid" is an acceptably mild form of persecution, though, and the only injury is to our pride.)
Mark 1:17 - "Come, follow Me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men."
Wouldn't it be something if all these "anonymous" posts WERE one person yanking Roy's chain? Somewhat related question: if Roy posts alone in the forest, does it make a sound?
I appreciate the joys of cyber discussion as much as anyone, but, at this point, the discussion here has become uncomfortably self-indulgent and solipsistic. Let's move on folks.
What do you make of Mr. Kristol's take on the Warren forum in this morning's Times?
And what about Michael Cohen's piece in which he compares Obama to the elder Frederick Douglas?
Better yet, see the new post. What are we to make of a board of trustees that persists in foisting an incompetent and ruthless chancellor upon a district, thereby threatening its colleges' accreditation? (See OC Blog tomorrow).
I (we?) accept your concession.
Somehow, I knew that you would exhibit your usual level of graciousness.
Chunk, you're much too gracious.
When I read this crap:
"As for the leftist whining from the likes of Carmichael, that all seems based on self-pity and resentment of the success and influence of Warren. Leftist cynicism is leftist self-justification. It is quickly recognizable, it gets old fast, and it grates"
I just want to puke.
It just goes to show that the righties go over all the same old talking points. No discussion about how wealth is accumulated, who gets screwed, and how the environment gets despoiled (and look at McCain's voting record on the environment). (yes, yes, Warren made money off the faithful flock, and didn't destroy a coral reef. So waht.)
Just comments about "whining" and "cynicism."
11:29,
I guess you missed the part about how Warren "redistributed" his own great wealth. You should like that, except that he wasn't forced to do so by the government. I bet he has given away more than you have or ever will, and a higher percentage of his income and wealth.
He puts his money where his mouth is. Do you?
Go "puke" again.
No wonder some of us post anonymously. Some of these leftists might want to get started on their next 100 million murders.
I just don't have a "Google/Blogger" identity, so I post anonymously -- no crime in that -- if it was good enough for Alex Hamilton, it's good enough for me. Deal with the person's points, not the person:
Here's the real story behind the ticket distribution. The moment McCain & Obama were announced as this month's Civil Forum guests we were overwhelmed with thousands of requests from partisans who wanted to fill our auditorium with their troops. To prevent them from taking all the seats we did two things: First, we reserved 95% of the 5000+ tickets as FREE to our Saddleback volunteers who faithfully serve our family. We then sold 5% - less than 250 seats - to other members & outsiders in order to defray the expenses of this (now) national event. I didn't want our tithes and offerings paying for this event.
One untold story is that we invited the principals of schools in the Santa Ana district to select some worthy students to attend for free in order to experience the American election system. 22 students and 2 chaperones have been awarded seats.
Now, let's move on and define "cone of silence".
Those middle two paragraphs should have been in quotes (an e-mail from Rick Warren, if you want to continue attacking him personally too ; )
Obviously, that one does not have a "Google/Blogger" identity does not prevent one from signing one's name. Good grief.
--Roy Bauer
Please note that, had the writers of the Federalist Papers revealed their identity, they would have risked prison or worse.
Those who compare their "anonymity" to that of Hamilton (et al.) are truly beyond the pale and beyond the reach of reason.
Obviously, that one does have the opportunity to acquire a ticket to the Saddleback Forum does not prevent one from claiming that he did not have such an opportunity. Good grief, indeed.
As for the "need" for anonymity, especially if THE ONE is elected, you should have seen some of the wackos protesting outside the Church Saturday ...
2:26, that tears it. You are ruining our blog with your stupidity. I'm gonna start taking out the trash.
No skin off my nose. You know the truth.
Here's some fabulous logic.
"I guess you missed the part about how Warren "redistributed" his own great wealth. You should like that, except that he wasn't forced to do so by the government."
ok, for the fun of it, post some evidence about what the great man has given away.
" I bet he has given away more than you have or ever will, and a higher percentage of his income and wealth. "
See, that's what we call an ad hominem. What I or anyone else does, or you, who is obviously a very generous person, is immaterial.
"He puts his money where his mouth is. Do you?"
Who cares.
Now, address the point about "redistribution of wealth" and where wealth often comes from--you know, massive exploitation, environmental degradation, and slave labor.
Stupid comment of the day:
"No wonder some of us post anonymously. Some of these leftists might want to get started on their next 100 million murders."
Hard to top that one.
Thanks Roy for posting topic. Hey, I couldn't agree w/you more on Warren. Keep up the awesome work!
In any case, IMO from what I noticed, the entire debate was more set up to make McCain look good. You know, with that bogus question about "evil." C'mon that seemed a bit slanted to me. However, IMO Obama outshined him by at least 100 miles.
Me
As far as I'm concerned, Roy keep on posting these sorts of topics. IMO it's always great to have some serious blog discussions.
2nd, from what I noticed in this Warren forum a lot of the questions seemed to be more slanted toward McCain. It's like c'mon the question about if evil exists? IMO Obama answered the question perfectly. He didn't slip up once.
3rd, however, one of the more frightening things that I observed was this roar of the audience (no doubt most of Warren's flock) when it came to the question about same sex marriage. You know, these are the people who primarily come out in droves to vote (along w/the elderly), so this scares the crap out of me. You know, if McCain got in would any of his GOP cohorts try to push forward another Consititutional amendment regarding the banning of it. Also, the voters of California (the initiative coming up on the Nov. ballot).
The uncomfortable back and forth about whether Roy "lied" about having access to a Candidate's Forum ticket can be straightened out pretty easily, I think. Roy's Accuser has really been a bulldog about it, and his insistence on his point has caused some problems.
Roy's Accuser contrasts truth with a lie, and of course there is such a contrast, and so the Accuser concludes that since it is true that Roy had access to a ticket through a link the Accuser provided, Roy must have been lying when he said that he could not get a ticket.
The solution to the clash played out before us is in the proper understanding of what is a lie. A lie is not just an untruth. The Accuser's "truth vs. lie" dichotomy is not without justification, but is too simple for this particular matter.
As Roy and other philosophers, including S. Bok, in her book on _Lying_, have pointed out: a lie is not just a false statement uttered, but a false statement uttered with the intention to deceive. The liar, then, must know that the statement that he utters is false in order to count as lying.
So, even supposing that it was true that Roy could have gotten a ticket through the link provided, if he didn't know that, then as far as he knew, he did not have access to a ticket. Then, if he said that he did not have access to a ticket, believing that to be the case, he was not making a statement that he knew to be false, and thus was not intentionally trying to deceive anyone, and, therefore, was not lying. The accusation against Roy is unjustified. The Accuser really does owe Roy an apology (this next is important): even if the Accuser sincerely believed all along that his accusation was just. The accuser just never had all the elements necessary for a "conviction."
Why do I mention this? After all, everything I just said is either explicit or implicit in how Roy has already responded.
I thought I could synthesize things and clear the air, and because the quality of the discussion on DtB got a little ugly, and I want to help restore the discussion to it's usually glorious, albeit imperfect, state.
-Jim D.
Jim:
It's not just Roy's admission that he had the link. He also flatly claims to have not had the "opportunity to acquire a ticket" when he did, by all objective standards. So, he is either lying about that too or showing complete and utter disregard for the truth. In addition, his conduct ever since being called on it, up to and including deletion / turning off comments, tends to support the allegation and is evidence of a guilty conscience. I would be more than comfortable presenting this case to an impartial jury.
I will not apologize.
ooooh!
nyahh nyahh nyahh!
Dear Accuser,
That was my best shot, but if I repeat a key point, maybe, just maybe, I will get through:
Even if Roy "flatly claims" to not have had access to a ticket and he really did, that does not make him a liar unless he knew he had access to a ticket. There is just no way that you can know that Roy knew that link was there and that it would work.
Maybe your pride is getting in the way now, or your self-will, or some combination thereof. There is no way I can know, because I cannot see into your mind. See the relevance of that last point?
OK, for my part, I promise to be done with this.
-Central Valley Jim
Yes, I see the relevance, but note that I am not claiming to be able to read Roy's (or anyone's) mind. There are other ways to prove a lie. For instance, Roy admitted he had the link, knew I had purchased a ticket at said link, but said he didn't want to waste his time any further. There's no doubt he had the opportunity to acquire a ticket. It is, objectively, a lie to now deny he had said opportunity.
What's next, if he claims the moon is made of cheese, he is not "lying" about that because he truly believes it?! Come on. No rational jury would buy that.
Is there anyone else who disputes that Roy "knew" the link to acquire a ticket would work?
I do.
And, I don't really care.
McCain rocks!!!
Repblicans rule, Demos drool
McCain rocks!!!
Repblicans rule, Demos drool
A sure sign that junior high is stil out of session.
Post a Comment