News and Commentary

There's so much going on in my head this morning that I'm going to try a different approach. Let's see how this flies.

Stan Smith News and Commentary

Dateline: Iraq and Afghanistan

Commanders in the field are reporting great success with the influx of additional soldiers. Thus far, there appears to be a dramatic decrease in violence in Iraq. While the incidents of mayhem haven't completely stopped, it seems that the "surge" is having such a positive effect that the Army has decided it needs to extend the stay of soldiers in the field for 3 months to continue the effort. Congress and the media assure us that the commanders in the field are wrong, that no soldiers should be there at all, and anyone who listens to any of that positive stuff is a dunderhead.

Dateline: Washington D.C.

Congress is still quite sure we're losing in Iraq and demand that the President bring the troops home. No negotiation. No discussion. They are perfectly willing to negotiate with Syria and Iran, known terrorist nations, but not with the President. How, exactly, they classify "losing" I'm not sure. We all know on a daily basis how many Americans have been killed, but I haven't seen the body count of the enemy yet. What classifies us as "losing"?

Dateline: US Broadcasting

MSNBC has decided to immediately drop Don Imus's show from its lineup because of his stupid, uncalled-for comment about the Rutgers women's basketball team. Major advertisers dropped off and there is a general outrage against Imus. Another talk show host in Pennsylvania asked listeners to repeat what Imus had said as a dare and was fired outright. The Rutgers team has gone on record as saying things like "This will scar us for life." We used to hear "I think you are completely wrong in what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Fortunately for America, that is apparently no longer the case. While I personally abhor Imus's comments and think getting rid of his talk show is a service to America, I think doing so for this incident is a little like putting Al Capone away for tax evasion. And while MSNBC absolutely has the right to make whatever business decision they want regarding who to broadcast and who not to broadcast, I wonder exactly how far Americans are willing to go to allow real censorship today. I was told as a kid, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." I was lied to. Despite the great skill and courage of the Rutgers women's basketball team in getting to the final four against all odds, it appears that their well-being and self-esteem is entirely tied up in only having nice things said about them from all sides ... including idiots like Imus. And why is there so little outrage over the dismissal of the charges against the Duke players? If anyone is "scarred for life", it would be them. It's not easy to step out from under a rape charge once it is made public. The coach lost his job over the false allegations. So how far will America go in allowing censorship? It's okay to censor racist remarks; it's not a problem to allow false allegations against white males. It's okay to refuse to print comics offensive to Muslims, but making insults to Christians on a nearly daily basis is acceptable. How far is too far?

Dateline: Jerusalem, Easter.

The Foundation for Freedom from Religion has finally proven that there was no Resurrection. It's simple. Try to align the biblical accounts of the Resurrection. You can't. And ... poof! ... the story vanishes in a puff of logic. I'm trying to get my arms around this approach. The idea is that with "a jury of its peers" (so to speak) the story would not be proven "beyond reasonable doubt". So, since it is being stated in terms of a trial, I'm imagining this process as an actual court event.

"Your honor, the People have had scientists testify and tell you that no such event has ever been recorded in modern medical history. We've heard the testimony of those who have found what they claim to be the bones of Jesus and his wife, Mary. Historians have testified that some early writers were known to highly spiritualize events. The Jesus Seminar people have testified to the fact that any miracle is impossible and all of that stuff is likely myth. The prosecution rests."

"Would the Defense like to call its first witness?"

"Yes, your Honor. We call Matthew."

The court listens quietly to Matthew's testimony, then says, "Your Honor, we object. Move to strike."

"On what basis?"

"Matthew told of the soldiers' interaction with the Pharisees. He could not have been there and, thus, it could only be hearsay."

"So what do you move to strike?"

"All of it! Strike all of his testimony."

"Next witness."

"The Defense calls Mark."

"Your Honor, we object! The last portion of Mark's account is not readily documented."

"Shouldn't you wait until we hear the testimony?"

Mark gives his testimony.

This goes on through Luke and John.

The Prosecutor again objects. "Your Honor, move to strike all this testimony."

"On what basis?"

"There are discrepancies. Matthew appears to say that the stone was rolled away after the women arrive, but the others indicate it was before. It is unclear on how many angels there were, if they were angels, exactly what they said when they said it, how many women went to the tomb, who spoke to whom, who saw Jesus first ... too many discrepancies, your Honor."

The Defense pipes in. "Your Honor, I think there is a viable explanation of all these so-called discrepancies, but I have a question. Is there any doubt that all of these accounts agree that Jesus rose from the dead? Even if we admit (we don't, but even if we did) to discrepancies in details, is there any doubt that there is one single fact being attested to by all accounts -- that Jesus rose from the dead?"

The Judge to the Defense: "Do you have any more witnesses?"

"Just one, your Honor. We call Paul."

Paul testifies that Jesus rose from the dead and that there were 500 witnesses. Go and ask them.

"Your Honor, we object! Eyewitnesses have nothing to do with this proceeding. Clearly science shows that no one rises from the dead and 'biblical scholars' have demonstrated that this is all myth. We have Jesus's bones, for goodness sake! Obviously the discrepancies in the details proves that it didn't happen."

I'd like to hear the Judge say, "Sit down and shut up," but in today's courts, who knows. Nonetheless, we have finally arrived at the point where the "science and reason" side is saying, "Don't bother me with evidence; I know I'm right." How exactly any possible discrepancies in minor details eliminates the undeniably coherent claim of the Bible that Jesus rose from the dead is beyond me.

Dateline: The South

Farmers in the southeast US are reporting major losses of fruit crops after experiencing some of the coldest temperatures on record for this time of year. If this global warming gets any worse, we really are going to freeze to death.