Skip to main content

Are We Still Really Arguing about the Election?

So I turned on the news the other day.  That was my first mistake.  I like to keep myself informed, I guess, but turning on the mainstream news hardly helps one to gather concrete information.  It does, however, allow you to see the type of idiocy that goes on in our nation's capital, so I turned on the TV around 6:00 P.M to see what was happening.  All the evening news programs were on and they were all, without fail, discussing the allegations that the Russians were involved in hacking and proliferating negative information in order to manipulate the election.  For some reason, they were all stating this as if it were a negative thing.  Imagine that!  The press is criticizing someone for spreading information!  Could the media "out" themselves any more clearly?  What more could they do to reveal their patent bias?

Get this.  The Democratic party, along with their bedfellows in the media, are accusing Russia, one of the most powerful nations in the world, of manipulating our Presidential election by revealing hidden information about one of the candidates!  Well, two things.  First off, if Russia did, in fact, manipulate our election, then they clearly learned from the best, namely, the United States of America.  What have we done for the last five decades if not manipulate the affairs of just about every foreign country (at least the ones with oil)?  We send soldiers.  We send weapons.  We topple dictators and intimidate regimes.  America, of all countries, has no room to be accusing Russia of interfering with our election!

Secondly, let these accusations really soak in for just a second.  They are accusing Russia of telling Americans how corrupt our government is!  How dare they?!  Have you ever heard anyone deny any of the details that have come to light through the WikiLeaks dumps?  Even in the debates Hillary chose not to do so. Have you seen anyone claim that the information being released was fraudulent? Nope.  It's all real.  It's all verifiable information.  The media, if they had any ethical fortitude whatsoever, should have been on the cutting edge of this whole thing.  They should have been pushing for transparency and accountability.  They should have been calling Hillary to answer for the litany of damning revelations that were made over the course of the final months of the campaign. They have done nothing of the sort.

So why are we still talking about this?  You can be sure that everything in D.C. is calculated, as is everything the mainstream media allows into our homes.  What benefit could they possibly receive from spreading anti-Russian sentiment?  It's a distraction, my friends.  That's all I can figure.  How much have you heard about WikiLeaks lately, outside of the blame being laid on Russia?  How much have you seen going around about the Clinton Foundation and the trail of bodies in Hillary's wake? Not much, right?  Once the election was over, all that went away.  Trump hasn't talked about it.  The media isn't talking about it.  Even the internet has gone cold on us!  Instead, everyone's trying to figure out who was behind it all.

What does this mean for our society?  Well, firstly, it means we have a short memory.  We wail on Facebook when someone dies or some catastrophe happens, but we forget about it a week later.  We were all up in arms about Hillary this and Hillary that, but now that season is over and we don't care. Secondly, and more significantly, this means that truth-tellers can't survive in our culture, which is a sign of a corrupt, tyrannical government and system.  They control the information.  If information gets out that they don't want you to possess, instead of punishing those implicated by this information, they punish those responsible for getting the information out there.  Ever heard of Edward Snowden?  Yeah, that's what our country does to the people who have the courage to be whistle-blowers.

So, whether Russia had anything to do with the WikiLeaks thing or not, it shouldn't really matter. Sure we should make sure our nation is secure from international hackers, but, no, that should not deflect our attention from the corruption being uncovered.  Wrong doing, once uncovered, should be paid for, regardless of how that information came to light.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, let me clarify what I mean when

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary