On News

Journalism is a good thing. I'm just gonna come out and say it up front, since I think "the media" gets a bad rap, and sometimes it's true that they're not doing their jobs as well as they should. But I think that correct criticism of journalists is always pointing in the direction of:

• You should have researched this more.
• You shouldn't only choose stories that confirm existing biases of your readers.
• You should have high standards for your writing.
• You shouldn't parrot official positions as news, whether of governments or of your owners.

So I'm sure you've noticed the trend, namely that these are all urging journalists to hold more closely to the ideals of journalism, which is why I can call it a "good thing." It is the one case where poking your nose where it's not wanted is actually worthwhile. To want to get to the heart of a matter, and seek truth, is noble. And to speak out when you see cases of corruption, hypocrisy, or just plain callousness on the part of governments or corporations is important for a healthy society.

Thus of course I'm saddened when it doesn't work out that way. I'm old enough to remember when Murdoch bought the WSJ, and guaranteed its standards would not change, and his biases wouldn't affect it - so much for that - and so if he buys the L.A. Times that'll be a tragedy. And now Bezos has picked up the Post, so we'll see where that goes. I'm not old enough to remember Hearst, but I gather he started this particular trend, and I'm against it wholeheartedly. I like my news without an agenda or cult of personality behind it, and would rather not be caught in-between huge Jaeger and Kaiju news organizations duking it out, each just trying to elect their set of candidates. That's "balanced" in the same way a society in which everyone had guns would be "safe," or in the way MAD kept the Cold War "peaceful." My essential point is that two untruths don't make a truth.

Nowadays, each individual citizen has to put in their own legwork to find out whose money and bias are behind each news story they read; that's the new normal. But don't get me wrong, though - I'm definitely not arguing equivalence between more liberal and more conservative media in this particular time and country. I mean, it's gotten bad enough that I prefer getting my news from foreign or international news agencies just because they're more likely to tell the plain facts - but these prove more similar to the stories you'd hear on the "liberal" side of the news, rather than the conservative, which I don't think is a coincidence. And at its root, I think the "two-party news" we have in the US is very much just a case of one news organization setting itself up as the "conservative" voice, opposed to... everybody else, which is a bit of a manufactured dilemma. I hate those.

So journalists! Take heart, go out there, and find the real stories. You probably don't have much longer before some combination of corporations and the government decide that there is still too much truth going around, and the internet is too free. Come to think of it, that might be as good a story to start with as any...

Reasons Paul Should Have Been A Woman

In the shower this morning I got to thinking along these lines, and determined there would have been some definite benefits to Paul (the Bible letter-writer guy) having been female. Here are a few:

1. Theories about the writer of the book of Hebrews being Paul, or being female, wouldn't be at odds.

2. Debates about whether women could be preachers would be nonexistent.

3. Here's the main one I want to talk about: Paul might not have written about circumcision, but instead brought up virginity in the letter to the Romans. This might have saved a lot of strife over the last couple thousand years.
     And it makes sense. Paul goes off in the second chapter on how circumcision is worthless if you're not going to keep all the old law, and that what Christians need to focus on instead is the state of their heart. It's a brilliant section of scripture, that letter to Romans, and well worth a read.
     I'd hold that you can substitute in (female) "virginity" for "circumcision" and leave the meaning unchanged.

• Both are basically worried about the state of a little flap on your genitals.
• Both are concepts relating to legalistic holiness, usually more from the point of view of parents than of the children involved.
• Both are easily thought of in terms of chastity, which IS a virtue, one which Paul upholds even while completely demolishing the supposed requirement of circumcision. What matters, Paul holds, is whether or not you have faith and dedicate your heart to God, not whether or not you're circumcised.
• Both are irreversible.
• Both are often used to sort out the "right sort" of people from the "wrong sort."

     Now, I did mention parents there, which I'm sure raised red flags for tons of people. Anyone familiar with Christian circles knows that circumcision of children is still very popular, despite the discussion in Romans, and again in Galatians. Nowadays, parents will also cite "health" concerns, which is all well and good, but there remains a sense in which the parents are doing it as a further way of dedicating the child to God (in addition to baptism, if they do that). They see it as helping their kids be "holy" (ie, not be as inclined to masturbate or seek out sex). This, of course, is wrong on tons of levels, and represents a complete misunderstanding of Paul, biology, and faith itself. Parents who want this for their kids need to seriously examine their motivations.

     Similarly, parents are often very protective of their daughters' virginity. I'm not saying things would be completely different if Paul had brought up virginity (he does in 1st Corinthians, though there it's also a shorthand for dedication to God, not as a biological thing). Circumcision, as I said, is still widely practiced in Christian circles, so maybe we'd likewise still have "Purity Balls," stupid analogies based on cookies, etc. even if virginity was specifically declared worthless in the Bible. But with circumcision, it's nice to be able to point to a passage in Scripture and say, "look, if you're Christian, you really don't need to be worried about this," when really I think it should apply to both concepts. Parents should encourage their kids to be chaste (in addition to kind, humble, patient, temperate, and so on). But worrying overly much (or teaching them to worry overly much) about their virginity is just plain harmful and un-Christian. 

     "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." (Galatians 5:6) 

4. Discussions on head-coverings might have included style suggestions.  :-p