A christian blog with a decidedly biblical perspective on the world and events around us. Look around, read, enjoy and feel free to comment. Interesting story, send us the info via our contact page. Subscribe by clicking here.
Subscribe to RSS
Isaiah 54:4-6
Fear not, for you shall not be ashamed; neither be confounded and depressed, for you shall not be put to shame. For you shall forget the shame of your youth, and you shall not seriously remember the reproach of your widowhood any more.
For your Maker is your husband, the Lord of hosts is His name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth He is called.
For the Lord has called you like a woman forsaken, grieved in spirit and heartsore, even a wife [wooed and won] in youth, when she is later refused and scorned, says your God. [Amplified Bible].
Although this chapter is primarily intended to express Zion’s joy over redemption, it has also a very personal, long neglected because overlooked, message for women – the lonely, the disappointed, the childless, the widow.
It has all the glorious confidence and assurance, the incentive and understanding for which feminine hearts have longed during the ages!
Every woman who will read it every week for a year, with receptive heart and mind, will find herself not only spiritually prepared for her own childlessness or widowhood, should it come, but supplied with rich treasure with which to meet such need of countless other aching hearts to whom the Holy Spirit is here speaking. [Amplified Bible].
Indeed, I would counsel men to read this chapter, as there are multitudes that are subject to similar situations; they too can draw strength from the words and look to the future with new hope. If a man is the ‘bride of Christ’ he certainly qualifies in this area.
Isaiah 52:13-15
Behold My servant shall deal prudently, He shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.
As many were astonied at Thee: His visage was so marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men.
So shall He sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at Him: for that which had not been told them shall they see: and that which they had not heard shall they consider.
Prudent defined:
Heb. Sakal, to be circumspect and intelligent; considerate; expert; prosperous; to deal prudently; be skilful; have good success; behave self; guide wittingly [v13]. It is translated ,behaved wisely [1 Sam. 18:5; Ps. 101:2]; prosper [Dt. 29:9; Jos. 1:7; 1 Ki. 2:3]; good success [Jos. 1:8]; deal prudently [Isa. 52:13]; and understand [Dan. 9:25]
Exaltation Planned:
In God’s plan, this always follows humiliation, suffering, obedience and conformity to the chief end in life – the highest good of all [Mt. 23:12; Lk. 14:11; Lk. 18:14; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 5:8-9]. The Heb. Ruwm, means, to rise to a high place; to be lifted up to a high position.
Messiah Anointed:
Heb. Shamem, to stun; grow numb; stupefy; be shocked; make amazed; be astonished; wonder.
Translated astonied [v14] astonishment; wondered; amazed; astonished.
Jehovah’s Servant:
Jehovah’s Servant, not the servant of Satan, man or sin.
This servant is not Israel, the church, or the prophet himself, but the Messiah who was predicted in Isa. 7:14; Isa. 9:6-7; Isa. 42:1; Isa. 52:13; Isa. 53:11; Isa. 65:8.
His exaltation is first introduced as this is the eternal aspect of the Messiah [Isa. 52:13, 15]; and then His humiliation is dealt with in detail as this is the immediate step to His exaltation [Isa. 52:14; Isa. 53:1-12].
This chapter should have started at Isa. 52:13, for it begins the detailed description of the Messiah in suffering and exaltation. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SECTION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AND COULD BE CALLED THE HEART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
No other portion of the Bible of like size, gives the reasons for the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ.
NO OTHER PART OF THE BIBLE HAS CREATED MORE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE FRIENDS AND FOES OF CHRISTIANITY.
Proverbs 20:20
20 Whoso curseth his father or his mother, his lamp shall be put out in obscure darkness.
Here is, 1. An undutiful child becomes very wicked by degrees. He began with despising his father and mother, slighting their instructions, disobeying their commands, and raging at their rebukes, but at length he arrives at such a pitch of impudence and impiety as to curse them, to give them scurrilous and opprobrious language, and to wish mischief to those that were instruments of his being and have taken so much care and pains about him, and this in defiance of God and his law, which had made this a capital crime (Exod. 21:17, Matt. 15:4), and in violation of all the bonds of duty, natural affection, and gratitude.
2. An undutiful child become very miserable at last: His lamp shall be put out in obscure darkness; all his honour shall be laid in the dust, and he shall for ever lose his reputation. Let him never expect any peace or comfort in his own mind, no, nor to prosper in this world. His days shall be shortened, and the lamp of his life extinguished, according to the reverse of the promise of the fifth commandment. His family shall be cut off and his posterity be a curse to him. And it will be his eternal ruin; the lamp of his happiness shall be put out in the blackness of darkness (so the word is), even that which is for ever, Jude 13, Mat. 22:13.
- Matthew Henry Commentary
Proverbs 19:1
1 Better is the poor that walketh in his integrity, than he that is perverse in his lips, and is a fool.
Here see, 1. What will be the credit and comfort of a poor man, and make him more excellent than his neighbour, though his poverty may expose him to contempt and may dispirit him. Let him be honest and walk in integrity, let him keep a good conscience and make it appear that he does so, let him always speak and act with sincerity when he is under the greatest temptations to dissemble and break his word, and then let him value himself upon that, for all wise and good men will value him. He is better, has a better character, is in a better condition, is better beloved, and lives to better purpose, than many a one that looks great and makes a figure.
2. What will be the shame of a rich man, notwithstanding all his pomp. If he have a shallow head and an evil tongue, if he is perverse in his lips and is a fool, if he is a wicked man and gets what he has by fraud and oppression, he is a fool, and an honest poor man is to be preferred far before him.
- Matthew Henry Commentary
Proverbs 19:2
2 Also, that the soul be without knowledge, it is not good; and he that hasteth with his feet sinneth.
Two things are here declared to be of bad consequence:–
1. Ignorance: To be without the knowledge of the soul is not good, so some read it. Know we not our own selves, our own hearts? A soul without knowledge is not good; it is a great privilege that we have souls, but, if these souls have not knowledge, what the better are we? If man has not understanding, he is as the beasts, Ps. 49:20. An ignorant soul cannot be a good soul. That the soul be without knowledge is not safe, nor pleasant; what good can the soul do, of what is it good for, if it be without knowledge?
2. Rashness. He that hastes with his feet (that does things inconsiderately and with precipitation, and will not take time to ponder the path of his feet) sins; he cannot but often miss the mark and take many a false step, which those prevent that consider their ways. As good not know as not consider.
- Matthew Henry Commentary
Hebrews 12:2
Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith.
Only in proportion as we come into touch with the Lord Jesus, only as we realise His presence, His Person, shall we receive His blessing. Apart from Him, nothing; but in Him, and with Him, all things necessary for the present and future are ours.
How will the blessing come? Not by looking in, but by looking up and by looking out. You must see His face, and you must hear His voice, and you must do His bidding. That is the threefold secret of blessing.
You must see the King first; and in His hand the sceptre and the crown of that sceptre is the cross. You will realise that the King must be seen first on the cross, the King of the Jew, before He becomes the King of your lives, and the King of heaven. Look up , then, and see Him as your own personal Saviour, the representative for the new Adam, the new race, as it were, introducing a new creation into the world.
You will realise that as in Adam all die – such is our relationship with the first Adam by the flesh – Jesus Christ has come, born at Bethlehem, the Child born, the Son given; Bethlehem, the house of bread, that satisfies the whole hungry world.
Here is the Christ of God, Jesus Christ, God-man, who was born of our flesh, who has come to make us partakers of the divine nature, and to impart His character, that we may be one with Him for ever: ‘As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all’ – that does not mean all creation; it is a technical expression, meaning those that are in Him by grace, through the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, and in Him by faith and will surrendered – ‘even so in Christ shall all such be made alive.’
To us the old Puritan expression, ‘Once born, twice to die; twice born, once to fall asleep.’ – J. Taylor Smith: The Blessed Life, 1913
- Daily Thoughts From Keswick.
Is the U.S. Diplomatic and Intelligence Community Being Brainwashed in Dealing with Islamism?
Posted: 24 Apr 2010 02:21 PM PDT
Please be subscriber 11,000. Just put your email address in the box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
We depend on your tax-deductible contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to “American Friends of IDC,” with “for GLORIA Center” in the memo line.
By Barry Rubin
When I first heard the story that President Barack Obama was barring from national security documents the use of terms like “Islamism,” “Islamic fundamentalist,” “Islamic radicalism,” or any reference of any connection between Islam and terrorist or revolutionary groups; al-Qaida, Hamas, and Hizballah; Iran’s regime or al-Qaida, I said to myself, oh that’s nothing new. That kind of policy started under Bush.
But then I realized–and this isn’t obvious in the coverage but is the most important aspect of all!–that this policy applies to internal government documents not just public statements. That’s both scary and shocking. Because the implication won’t be lost on career officials that along with not using these words it isn’t going to help their future prospects to use these concepts.
I don’t want to overstate the situation. In internal government discussions, people do refer to “Islamic radicals,” for example. It is the written work that is more likely to suffer. And are things going to tighten up under this administration in the years to come?
Suppose I’m an intelligence analyst in the State Department, Defense Department, armed forces, or CIA, and I’m writing about one of these groups or this ideology. How can one possibly analyze the power and appeal of this ideology, the way that ideas set its strategy and tactics, why it is such a huge menace if any reference to the Islamic religion and its texts or doctrines isn’t permitted?
Indeed, it is worse. Can you refer to the claims of these groups about Islam, even while insisting that they are wrong? Remember it isn’t just a matter of forbidding officials from doing something, they are going to get the signal that it is better for their careers not to do so.
And if one cannot talk about “Islamist” groups can you identify them as a huge threat or is the analyst tempted to suggest that they can be won over and moderated rather than they need to be combatted? Perhaps, say, the coming to power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt might not be such a bad thing, or Hizballah is something the U.S. government can work with?
How could one even talk about a coherent Islamist movement, which is possibly the most single significant feature of international affairs today, at least in the Middle East–if I cannot use the “I” word even as part of a different word?
Suppose I’m reporting on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Could I say without fear:
Yes, of course, Islam is a religion of peace but these people want to hijack and distort it. So what they do is look at certain basic texts and important Muslim theologians and interpet their statements to mean that ultimately no compromise is possible, Egypt must become an Islamic [oops] state, America is going to be their enemy, and Israel must be destroyed. Of course, this is just a distortion of Islam [which is a religion of peace] but many people believe it because they have been taught an interpretation similar to the one the Brotherhood is using.
Or would I have to say:
Since Islam is a religion of peace and is really moderate and there’s nothing in it that lends itself to a radical [mis]interpretation, therefore, the Brotherhood will realize this and become moderate or the Muslim masses–who, of course, understand their own religion–will inevitably reject the Islamists [oops!] false interpretation. In short, no worries and every little thing’s gonna be all right. [Footnote: Bob Marley.]
After all, this is the name of the doctrine that triggers so much terrorism; destroyed the World Trade Center; overthrew the shah of Iran; seized power in the Gaza Strip; is killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan; and is trying to mount revolutions in countries as far-flung as Morocco, Algeria, Yemen, and Somalia to India, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Yet that reovlutionary Islamist doctrine itself is exploiting every advantage it can from the fervent belief of millions of people in Islam and the fact that its ideology arguably does coincide with some of that religion’s most important features.
In contrast to the “official” view that Islam is a religion of peace which a few heretical desperadoes is trying to hijack, my image is one of a fight over the steering wheel between two rivals which each have a claim to ownership of the vehicle. We know who we want to win, but the battle’s outcome isn’t going to be determined by pretending that an Islamist ideology doesn’t exist or that all the Muslim onlookers are laughing at the ridiculous pretensions of obviously outlandish heretics to their religion. After all, if that’s true, the Islamists have no chance of gaining power, right?
But while the Islamists are not “the” or the only embodiment of Islam, they are an embodiment of Islam who can make their case for legitimacy, and must be understood as such. The danger is that the Islamists will in future be accepted as the definers of Islam by huge numbers of people. The Islamists may disillusion people if they become rulers–as did the Communists–but once they have control over a country and its weapons it’s too late to debate them into defeat.
I’m less bothered by the fact that the U.S. government won’t allow officials to speak that way publicly. There are two arguments for this stance: so as not to “insult” Muslims by associating them with Islamists and to avoid giving Islamists legitimacy as claimants to being normative Muslims. Both have a certain public relations’ value but are sort of silly at the same time since many Muslims embrace Islamism while Muslims don’t care what non-Muslims think about anyone’s credentials. At any rate, these don’t apply so much to the phrase “revolutionary Islamist” for example.
Those of us who know how government bureaucracy works understand that officials don’t do things that jeopardize their careers and promotion hopes. For example, few in the U.S. army are going to look seriously for budding Islamist terrorists in their own ranks because–despite the Fort Hood massacre–to do so risks being called racist, Islamophobe, and–worse, lieutenant-for-life. And–may I be blunt here?–if officer bureaucrats and officials have to choose between getting into trouble and endangering lives, a lot of them will choose the latter.
For without an ability to discuss these matters frankly, analysis and reporting cannot be accurate. In effect, whole arguments and ideas will be swept from people’s minds. Already, the U.S. armed forces is too intimidated (and individuals too concerned about their careers) to examine soberly and seriously the potential development of Islamist terrorists in its own ranks. My sources tell me nothing has improved in this respect since the Fort Hood massacre.
To extend this intellectual malpractice further to international affairs and intelligence reporting within the government may go down in history as the most dangerous thing the Obama Administration has ever done. Imagine trying to analyze the USSR without being able to talk frankly about Communism; Nazi Germany without a serious analysis of its fascism. The analysis of samurai culture and the sanctity of the emperor in Japanese religion were absolutely vital for the U.S. conduct of World War Two.
How can one have a good discussion of what differentiates moderates from radicals or whether, say, Turkey’s government is a center-right family-values’ regime or an Islamist one? In what manner can somebody understand how a revolutionary Islamist group might quickly pick up support from millions within a country by using Islamic concepts and texts to justify itself in a persuasive manner? How can you figure out how to dispute Islamist claims if you don’t even acknowledge their existence and at least partial validity?
The above probably overstates the case. For example, there is still plenty of talk about “Islamic radicals” but very little longer-range or broader conceptualizations of what it all means. If you were a diplomat or intelligence analyst would you write a dispatch or report, for example, saying that the gaining of power in any Middle East country by revolutionary Islamist groups is a threat to U.S. national interests?
Yet the pressure is on for them to treat Islamist regimes and movements as rational, realist, national-interest-oriented, pragmatic entities whose ideas, methods, and behavior have nothing to do with Islam. Or, in the case of al-Qaida and others, the alternative is that they are insane heretical groups that have nothing to do with Islam?
Will officials be intimidated into shutting mouths and minds, altering strategic proposals, censoring out timely warnings? And that is a potential catastrophe for U.S. interests and is possibly going to be very costly in lives lost.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
The U.S.-Israel Crisis May Be Over and We Can “Celebrate” the Achievement of Nothing?
Posted: 23 Apr 2010 11:46 AM PDT
Please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
We depend on your tax-deductible contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to “American Friends of IDC,” with “for GLORIA Center” in the memo line.
By Barry Rubin
Something very interesting is happening very quietly. The Obama Administration appears to have forgotten about its quarrel with Israel, even though it is being reported with increasing reliability that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has refused to suspend all construction in eastern or northern Jerusalem outside the 1967 lines. Maybe he has given an assurance to slow things down and avoid anything the U.S. government considers provocative.
Yet the fact is that Netanyahu has not bowed to U.S. pressure in a meaningful way, and the Obama Administration has decided to ignore it and pretend it now has a formula for getting talks going again. Yes, folks, they’re coming any moment now. One day.
Goodness, gracious! This administration’s great achievement isn’t going to be making peace in the Middle East but succeeding in achieving Israel-PA negotiations! I can practically hear the 2012 presidential election ads now: President Obama Got the Israelis and Palestinians Talking!
Sometimes this administration’s foreign policy seems like a man who wants a glass of water, exits the building instead of going to the water cooler, gets lost, falls into several holes, narrowly escapes being hit by some cars, and finally arrives home after a very long time. He takes a look at the empty glass in his hand, looks into the camera, and then confidentally announces to the audience: “Now, I am going to get a glass of water!”
A large, albeit diminishing, portion of the audience cheers, while pundits announce that he is really working hard on getting that glass of water, has a terrific strategy, doubt he will soon be sipping away, and everyone sure likes him!
I’m not in the audience booing. I’m shouting: Please, for goodness sakes, pull yourself together and do better!
But I digress. Clearly, for the moment, the White House has realized that it has gone too far. Three different polls show large numbers of Jewish voters saying they are very unhappy with Obama and that Americans as a whole regard the bash-Israel behavior as the most negative aspect of the president’s foreign policy. Members of his own party in Congress are revolting against it, as well as against his strategies on Iran and Syria.
Obama no longer “owns” the Democratic party and November elections are looming up to reinforce that lesson by showing Democrats the cost of his mistakes for themselves personally.
And, of course, once again the administration has painted itself into a corner on the “peace process” issue and has nothing to gain.
So now there is talk about all sorts of gimmicks to get negotiations going between Israel and the Paleestinian Authority (PA). I won’t go into these since none matter unless actually offered formally. What is important, however, is going to be whether the PA wants to talk, directly or indirectly, as well as whether the administration is going to do anything to push them. Israel has been, and for the last year made it clear, ready and eager to talk.
Perhaps you’ve heard the expression, “We can do this the hard way or the easy way.” The implication is that if the person spoken to decides to cooperate all will be fine but if they don’t things can get unpleasant. Despite very occasional exceptions–which usually seem directed at Israel–the Obama Administration does this to itself, chooses the hard way, and still doesn’t get anywhere.
Things could have been quite different. A year ago, the White House could have played it smart and been playing host and facilitator for Israel-PA negotiations all this time. Sure they wouldn’t produce a lot but would gain a little, kept things peaceful, and make the White House look good. Instead, there’s been one mess after another.
For the moment, the government seems to want to move out of Mess Mode. It has Iran to deal with, growing domestic discontent, and an economy that is responding far worse than the media cheerleaders claim. So it needs to back off confrontation with Israel.
Here’s what I think, is an extraordinarily important point. The Obama Administration is neither radical satanic nor moderately pragmatic in doing foreign policy. It is rather fettered by a set of ideas, lack of skills, and close-mindedness to criticism that make for an inept approach which is not meeting the needs of U.S. interests. Through action, the Obama administration has not done one big bad thing internationally. The problem stems from its frustrating inactions, misleading words, and dangerous ideas.
What might be called the administration’s glamor masks the fact that Obama is in the Gerald Ford-Jimmy Carter-George W. Bush class of president regarding competence. He is not in the Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, etc., category.
Adherents can boast that Obama kept us out of war and unpopularity, though perhaps he is laying the basis for such things in future, as tends to happen when international affairs are not well conducted.
So the great Jerusalem construction affair seems to be over. But where does that leave us? After a lot of shouting and wandering around, right back at the beginning.
Thanks for reading this far. Since this is a long article, you can stop now or continue on to:
Optional satirical section with clever ending:
Or, in the words best sung by Tennessee Ernie Ford (albeit slightly altered here) in that great coal-mining song, “Sixteen Tons”:
You wait sixteen months
an’ what do you get?
Another month wasted, enemies stronger yet.
Ahmadinejad don’t you get nukes cause I can’t do,
Anything effective to prevent you!
There is another verse which, left in the original words of the song, give some good advice about an important part of conducting foreign policy. Some have depended too much on this approach but the Obama Administration would be well-advised to add it to its repetoire (and also thing of using it against enemies rather than friends):
“Well, if you see me comin’,
better step aside.
A lotta men didn’t, an’ a lotta men died.
One fist of iron, the other of steel.
If the right one don’t get you,
then the left one will.”
Yes, the “left” fist of America, that is liberal Democrats historically, knew how to be tough on enemies and stand up for U.S. interests, too. What’s really important in this regard is not that the president of the United States be a white man or a black man, a glib man or an inarticulate man, or even a man at all (in gender terms). What’s necessary in a time like this is that the chief executive be a Truman.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Why Journalists Should be “Two People”: A Lesson in Professional Ethics
Posted: 22 Apr 2010 11:55 PM PDT
Please be subscriber 10,090. Just put your email address in the box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
We depend on your tax-deductible contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to “American Friends of IDC,” with “for GLORIA Center” in the memo line.
By Barry Rubin
There’s a wonderful exchange in “Citizen Kane” that tells us about the proper role of the media. The banker Thatcher–sort of a J.P. Morgan type–says to his former ward Charles Kane, who is using his money to run a newspaper that is simultaneously reform-minded and sensationalist.
First, I’ll quote; then I’ll explain:
THATCHER: “I came to see you, Charles, about your – about the Enquirer’s campaign against the Metropolitan Transfer Company….I think I should remind you, Charles, of a fact you seem to have forgotten. You are yourself one of the largest individual stockholders.
KANE: “Mr. Thatcher, isn’t everything I’ve been saying in the Enquirer about the traction trust absolutely true?….The trouble is, Mr. Thatcher, you don’t realize you’re talking to two people. As Charles Foster Kane, who has 82,631 shares of Metropolitan Transfer–you see, I do have a rough idea of my holdings–I sympathize with you. Charles Foster Kane is a dangerous scoundrel, his paper should be run out of town and a committee should be formed to boycott him. You may, if you can form such a committee, put me down for a contribution of $1,000.
“On the other hand I am the publisher of the Enquirer. As such, it is my duty…to see to it that decent, hard-working people of this city are not robbed blind by a group of money-mad pirates because, God help them, they have no one to look after their interests!”
What Kane is saying is this: My personal (economic) interest is to back the company, but my duty as a journalist is to report the truth and expose those who are doing wrong. If I don’t do it, no one–or at least no one who is going to preserve freedom–is going to do so.
Since this is the traditional issue of wealthy versus poor, we might read these lines just based on the specific case in question. Yet Kane is saying that he is “two people.” One of them is a man with his own interests; the other is a journalist whose job is to expose the truth. Notice how important it is for Kane to first establish that his charges are true: he isn’t lying to help the working people; to do so would be demagoguery.
Here’s the point: as a person with political views a journalist might say: I love Barack Obama, I voted for him and gave $1000 to his campaign. I think Republicans are evil. I loathe anyone conservative. Every time I hear him speak a thrill runs up my leg. I hope Barack Obama is president forever and does everything he wants to do.
But then he should go on to say: as a journalist all of that is totally irrelevant. My job is to tell the truth as best I can, even if it makes my “side” look bad and if I don’t protect the people who might be hurt by a given policy who else can do so?
With a lot of shortcomings, that’s the historic view of journalism in the United States. Is it naive to think that someone can so separate out such things? But that’s what professional ethics, Enlightenment values, democratic norms–and might one dare say modern Western civilization?–are based on. And when someone fails that test, they should be called to order, their work edited appropriately to siphon out bias and to ensure fairness. That includes reporting, not burying, stories just because they do not further the cause that they favor in their “other” identity, when off-work.
Yet this is not at all what is happening all too often today, when large elements in the media have thrown out their sacred trust in order to back individuals and policies–hiding or slanting stories–merely because those are the ones they personally favor.
[Forgive a digression about how so many other things hitherto taken for granted come unglued but this story, told to me first-hand, really shook me up. A doctor regularly receives referrals from the local office of the Immigration Service. One day a patient was sent over because, the officials said, he needed to get a certain shot to stay in the United States. The man insisted he didn't need it, but the doctor pointed out that, according to the regulations, he did. The man said to the doctor, "You're Jewish, aren't you? You don't like Syrians." Just like that the whole Weberian, rational, laws-not-man, equal-treatment-under-law infrastructure that holds up Western civilization collapsed and the Middle Ages had returned.]
It is no more moral for journalists or the media to become propagandist for causes they support in their personal political views than to do so for the Metropolitan Transfer just because they own shares in it.
Guess I’m kind of an old-fashioned guy who believes all this stuff he was taught in school back in the pre-post-modern era.
Here’s what Kane said in the declaration to readers of what his newspaper would do:
“I’ll provide the people of this city with a daily paper that will tell all the news honestly. And no special interests will be allowed to interfere with the truth of that news.”
Special interests includes the journalists’ own interests. In Kane’s manifesto there’s much less wiggle-room than in, “All the news that’s fit to print,” the New York Times’ slogan. Who decides what’s fit and on what basis? Now we know the answer for this era: all the news that won’t make people feel they have to fight wars in self-defense, criticize other countries or cultures, and vote against the editors’ own candidate.
Optional note: Yes, I know what happens in the film. Of course, Kane also broke his promises, which is a main theme of the film, and Leland reminded him of that bitterly.
But also let’s remember that later on after the scene I describe above, Kane’s own wife gives a bad singing performance and he bullies his staff into giving good reviews, But when Kane’s oldest friend–the theatre critic–pans her performance but passes out from drink before finishing it, Kane is so caught up in his journalistic-honesty persona that he completes the negative review. It is a reminder of the professional code which this complex character both reveres and breaks. Bernstein, Kane’s manager, thinks he did it to show his friend that he was an honest man–and a good journalist. The theatre critic thinks Kane did it to show off. I don’t care what the journalists’ motive is nowadays as long as they do their job.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.
Job 2:10
But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.
We rightly suppose that Job was a very religious man, and that he was acquainted with God and religious as it was understood and practiced in those days.
He no doubt knew of the many traditions and revelations of God up to that time, being a grandson of Jacob.
He was born 352 years after Noah died, and about 200 years after Shem died. This would allow for dates as follows:
-1 – Shem 502 years after flood [Gen.11:10-11, or contemporary with Abraham 75 years. He died the year Abraham left for Canaan [Gen.12:4].
-2 – Abraham 25 Years to Isaac [Gen.21:5]
-3 – Isaac 60 years to Jacob [Gen.25:26]
-4 – Jacob was about 85 when Issachar was born.
-5 – Issachar was about 30 years when Job was born.
-6 – Job was about 70 when he was afflicted, according to some scholars. This would make it only 772 years after the flood.
From the above we can understand how Job could know about the religious belief and practices of Shem, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob-their spiritual experiences and the doctrines adhered to. We find many of the great doctrines of the Bible in the Book of Job.
viagra and hearing loss Ed Treatment Natural Female use of viagra female version of viagra 761.
erectile dysfunction vacuums Cialis Dysfunction Erectile Levitra how to get viagra
herbal remedy for erectile dysfunction; Erectile Dysfunction Psychological Zocor erectile dysfunction zoloft erectile dysfunction 147.
robin williams viagra Viagra Spray "explore advances in male impotence treatments"
viagra perscription online Natural Remedy Erectile Dysfunction male hormone dhea impotence levels
will ferrell erectile dysfunction Viagra Perscription Online ed treatment with ginko
erectile dysfunction pills evaluated; On Viagra "non prescription viagra"
cialis viagra How To Buy Viagramale impotence age
Cigarette smoking and erectile dysfunction cigarette smoking causing male impotence 395. Impotence Viagra The latest treatment for ed topical ed treatment 237.
most effective ed treatment! Viagra 50 Mg actos erectile dysfunction
l dopa for male impotence! Buy Cheap Viagra erectile dysfunction and pravastatin;
male impotence pumps vacu Holistic Ed Treatment cost of viagra
female forcing male sexual impotence; Male Impotence Brochure actos erectile dysfunction
accounting treatment for sr ed Water Ed Treatment Male impotence due to surgery male impotence enema 629.
lamictal erectile dysfunction! Accounting Treatment Sr Ed Ias "buy viagra online"
problems with viagra, Viagra Cheap erectile dysfunction link suggest
"non prescription viagra" Viagra Uk viagra times;
viagra soft tabs? Ed Treatments erectile dysfunction ed treatment
u 3312 viagra cialis Male Impotence Advice yohimbie bark and male impotence
facts male impotence psychological effects
lexapro erectile dysfunction,
erectile dysfunction paypal, Zetia And Erectile Dysfunction straighttalk net erectile dysfunction review
male impotence and solutions? Make Your Own Viagra newest transdermal treatment for ed
tricor erectile dysfunction Hebal Ed Treatmenterectile dysfunction exercise
Viagra and alternatives viagra and blood pressure 767. How To Make Viagra how to take viagra
cialis medication erectile dysfunction Erectile Dysfunction Pills accupril and erectile dysfunction
Subscribe to RSS
