What could a Muslim religious scholar, possibly know about Jesus?

Nattering Naybob: Greetings, The Red Ranger. I assume you saw or heard of the so-called “interview” conducted by Lauren Green of FOX News, where she spent nearly ten minutes repeatedly questioning author Reza Aslan on why a Muslim was qualified to write a book about Jesus (“Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth”) or if he or she were qualified, why would they then write that book at all. The fact that Ms. Green holds the title of “Religion Correspondent” for FOX News makes her “questions” even more absurd.

Red Ranger, I know that every single media source or website that I link to or quote from, you think is biased or not valid, so this time I am going to annotate the story by linking to an article from the American Conservative.com, that refers to the “cringe-worthy” interview featuring a “misguided line of questioning”. As our President is fond of saying, “Now…let me be clear”, because this bears repeating: This article is from the American Conservative. Good for them for calling out FOX News’s totally transparent agenda of fear-mongering. The article links to the entire video of the “interview”, which lasts almost ten minutes but is worth watching if for no other reason than Mr. Aslan’s cool, calm, collected, yet firm, reaction to the whole fiasco.

The Red Ranger: OK, so I was wondering why would the Nattering Naybob get so worked up about this relatively innocuous, pedestrian interview, Then through a little detective work I realized that the radical left was all abuzz over this interview and commentary about it had popped up all over the liberal blogsosphere.  As is usually the case the left never fails to crucify anyone who dares to defend Christianity.  Here is a link to something found on FOX News.

So I will agree that maybe the interview did not live up to the exceptionally high standards that the FoxNews network has become expected to deliver it is still better than anything put out by the schlock, faux journalistic MSM.  I guess when you are the best, people are ready to jump on even the slightest misstep.

Nattering Naybob: As a tribe, you Republicans are nothing if not lock-step. As you all invariably do, you defend the actions of someone on the Right, or who espouses Right-leaning dogma in an offensive and intolerant manner, by saying that it is an “attack” or an attempt to “crucify” that person’s advocacy for that issue. For example, if someone on the Right makes a speech or posts a blog saying that there should be absolute unfettered access for all Americans to assault weapons, and a Liberal replies by saying that might not be a good idea, the Right-winger will say that the Liberal hates the Constitution, or that they are are soft on criminality, or that they are unfairly savaging the Right-leaning blogger in a partisan fashion.

So it is with this issue, Red Ranger, when you claim that Ms. Green was “defending Christianity”. Only you are wrong on two accounts, achieving a kind of propagandistic daily double. First, Ms. Green’s question about “why a Muslim should be writing a book about Jesus” had nothing to do with defending Christianity per se’. Instead it was yet another attempt to demonstrate a deep mistrust of all things Muslim, which has been FOX News’s stock and trade since September 11, 2001.

Second, and perhaps most important, it is not the anchor’s job to “defend” Christianity in the first place, it is her job to bring out points and ideas from the author’s book that will enlighten or educate the viewers. Ms. Green did none of that, and when the author suggested that she did not even read his book, she did not disagree with or correct him. Instead of giving Ms. Green the title of “Religion Correspondent”, why doesn’t FOX News just call her “Christianity Correspondent– or sometimes Judaism Correspondent When President Obama Calls For a Two-State Solutions and So Hates Israel”?

The Red Ranger: As usual the liberal left’s paranoia and insecurity comes through.  Has there ever been any group that is so completely and utterly inept at defending there positions or supporting why they have those positions.

How does posing a simple question demonstrate a deep mistrust of all things Muslim.  I suppose that if I wrote a book on Islam and was questioned by an Islamic reporter about why I wrote it then they would be demonstrating a deep mistrust of all things Christian just because they asked the question.

I didn’t realize that you had written Ms. Green’s job responsibilities.  Does your emploiyer know that you are moonlighting at another network?

Our biggest problems, Part two

This is Part 2 of an examination of The Red Ranger’s seven of “Our biggest problems” (see Part 1 here). We resume with…

 The Red Ranger:
Issue # 5: Rising gasoline prices 
Gas prices, which seemed to be heading downward several months ago, have now gone in the opposite direction and are nearing $4.00/gallon again; they may already be there in some parts of the country. In regard to gasoline prices I believe that this is one area where some greater control may be warranted. It has always baffled me how the impact of any negative event always has the immediate impact of increasing gas prices but the effects of positive events are always muted and delayed. I rate this impact as MINIMAL at this time, only because we have become accustomed to higher gas prices since Obama took office and made that his goal.

Nattering Naybob: There is very little that Presidents can do to influence gas prices. Any President is in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” bind when it comes to steering the country towards sources of energy other than petroleum derivatives. If he (or “she”, someday, hopefully in 2016) takes steps to divert demand away from the oil industry, Republicans (and some Democrats from oil-producing states), cries foul. Regarding the charge that Obama “made [it] his goal” to increase oil prices, that is nothing more than another urban myth propagated by Republicans while sitting around their “Get Obama” campfire. In the March 13th edition of “The Fact Checker”, the Washington Post gave this bogus claim, “Three Pinocchios”. The article is a little lengthy but it covers all sides of whether he did or didn’t.

The Red Ranger: So in reading the article, Obama didn’t come out against higher gas prices initially but wanted to put more money in people’s pockets. Is this just another veiled attempt for wealth redistribution where lower income families would get more money to pay for their gas at the expense of higher income families. He didn’t come out against higher gas prices until he realized his initial statement was causing him grief. Also, Energy Secretary Chu, has stated that the US needs to get its gas prices as high as Europe. I have not heard Obama refute that statement and since Chu is part of Obama’s administration I have to believe he supports this position.

Nattering Naybob: I see… when Obama wants to put more money in people’s pockets, it is “wealth distribution”. When Obama is perceived as taking money out of people’s pockets, he is accused of… well, taking money out of people’s pockets. This is typical of the Modern Republican habit of ALWAYS having some kind of “yeah, but” response for every scenario no matter what happens. If Obama suddenly announced that he had discovered a definitive, final cure for cancer, your reply would be “he should have allowed the private sector to cure cancer”, or “what took him so long to cure cancer, he’s been in office over three years”, or “sure, he cures cancer NOW…. right before the election. What a cheap stunt”. Regarding the statements made by Chu, these were uttered BEFORE he joined the administration, and Chu recanted them subsequently, as outlined in an article in USA Today by David Jackson on March 14th, 2012:
 

As for Chu’s comment, White House spokesman Jay Carney said critics “who try to suggest that the statement of someone who wasn’t even in government at the time is somehow a more significant indicator of the president’s policy than the president’s policy are engaging in politics on this issue.” After yesterday’s Senate hearing, Chu himself said: “There is a real hardship that Americans are suffering at the gasoline pump. The recovery is fragile. Another spike in gasoline prices could put that recovery at jeopardy. So there are many, many reasons why we do not want the price of gasoline to go up.”

The Red Ranger: Chu recanted his statement so that gullible people like yourself would be fooled into thinking that this wasn’t the Energy department’s policy going forward.  Or maybe Chu really was so desperate for the position that he was willing to give up his stated beliefs and make a 180% change on policy  just to get the position (unlikely).  Am I to believe that there wasn’t one equal candidate to Chu out there who was on the record agreeing with Obama’s policy without having to recant prior statements.

….On to Issue 6: Stagnant wages
This is one of the major obstacles to future prosperity in the US. Unless you are part of a government union, meaningful wage increases are getting harder and harder to come by. As world economies become more and more intertwined wages are tending toward an equilibrium that is above those in third world countries but below those in developed countries thereby raising the standard of living in some countries and lowering it in others. I don’t really see how the US can grow with wages increasing at 2% and basic necessities increasing at 4%. We will all be doing without in the future. I rate this one as SEVERE.

Nattering Naybob: Not much argument here that wages are stagnant. I think that American workers as a whole have become the victims of their own productivity. Corporate profits are at an all-time high as detailed in this June article from business.insider.com, but wages remain, conversely, at an all-time low based on real-dollar adjustments. From my decidedly “un-studied” perspective, I think there are two problems with this, first, why would corporations high more workers if the ones the ones they have, keep taking on more responsibilities in the wake of the layoffs and downsizing of the last decade or so? Second, the workers who DO remain employed, trying to avoid the specter of unemployment in this tough job market, seem only too willing (understandably) to take on this extra work if it means saving their own job.

There are other factors to this, including the erosion of unions, woeful inadequacy of the minimum wage, the eagerness to send American jobs overseas to workers who are content to receive literally pennies on the dollar compared to wages (however stagnant) back in America… but these topics are too complex to talk about in this post, perhaps a future SGM offering.

The Red Ranger: Agree with your thoughts on workers. I certainly am constantly taking on more responsibilities but like you astutely point out that with my improved productivity I can take them on without as much hardship as in the past. I disagree with your comments about unions as I believe that unions are one of the biggest causes of our issues in the first place. Why do federal employees need unions (I believe that even FDR said that was wrong). The same progressives who tout the benefits of government largess are the ones who belong to unions to protect them from the evil government who may force them to work too much. Not to rile up our loyal readers too much but why do teachers need unions?  So now the Chicago teachers go on strike throwing 400,000 kids out into the streets of Chicago. Just what Chicago needs given the lawlessness that is running rampant there currently. If the teachers truly cared about their students they would work without a contract. If one kid who should have been in school gets killed during the strike they should throw the head of the teacher’s union in jail.

Nattering Naybob: Using the trademark Red Ranger reasoning, if a teacher invokes their contractual right to strike, and a child is “killed” as a result (specious as that connection may be), is that the same thing as when a Republican governor tries to eviscerate a police department, or cuts firefighters to pay for a tax cut for the rich, and someone dies as a result, is that governor responsible for the death? And please explain the criteria for forming a union? Why should public sector employees be prevented from forming unions? Or are you against the concept of unions totally?

The Red Ranger: Chicago teachers are just about the highest paid in the country and have the shortest workday. Chicago is facing serious financial challenges, funny how that happens when you have Dems in charge and they consistently spend more than they bring in. While they may have the right to strike that doesn’t make it the right thing to do.Just like the Dems, and you in a previous discussion, view the constitution as an outdated document that has not kept up with the times, I view unions as outdated and unnecessary except in a few limited conditions.

Nattering Naybob: I think you had a seventh problem, any chance we can defer this to another post?….

The Red Ranger: No…

Issue # 7: The fiscal cliff is coming
Given the current makeup in Congress I do not see how anything productive will arise on this problem. I am hoping to be pleasantly surprised but am not holding my breath. 

We are on the fringes of the perfect storm. Since the consumer drives 70% of the US economy we are on the precipice of a very long and scary decline. I just do not see any way around it at this time. The Fed cannot do much more to stimulate the economy. QE1 and QE2 have basically just kept us afloat. Any future QE will just do the same. If the Fed is doing QE 6,7 and 8 isn’t safe to say that the QE efforts did not work otherwise they would not have had to keep doing them.
Rating is ON HOLD, pending future decisions to address.

Nattering Naybob: My response is simple. Until both parties put aside their differences and come up with a plan in which they both give up something, and walk hand-in-hand “over the cliff”, so that one party does not seem to be solely wearing the black hat, nothing will get done with regards to the fiscal cliff. Hopefully after Obama is re-elected (a prospect that has become more likely since the respective Conventions, as reported by the reliably non-partisan and insightful political prognosticator Nate Silver), the Republicans will stop trying to impede Obama at every turn and realize that the American people come out the losers when partisan ideology trumps all.

The Red Ranger: No surprise that Obama gets a bump after the way the conventions were handled by the media.  Any short-term bump from the skewed coverage will shortly wear off after another dismal jobs report.  Maybe my next topic will be about the way the administration distorts the jobs figures. 

Natering Naybob: Another odious and tiresome Modern Republican tactic: Obama receives good poll numbers, it is the work of the fawning, liberal, “main stream media”. Obama receives bad poll numbers, “the American people are finally rejecting his Socialist agenda”. Red Ranger, we all understand the Modern Republican shtick, and we are tired of it.

The Red Ranger: I know you cling to the belief that CBS, NBC and ABC are the bastions of true and honest journalism but those days are long gone.

“The name is an anagram”

Nattering Naybob: The recent anointing of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate, reminded me of one of my favorite movies, “Rosemary’s Baby”. Let me explain.

“Rosemary’s Baby” tells the story of Rosemary Woodhouse (Mia Farrow), who, unknowingly, is carrying a baby that was spawned by the Devil himself. This unhappy situation was facilitated by Rosemary’s own husband (John Cassavetes) and next-door neighbors (Sidney Blackmer and Ruth Gordon). In a pivotal scene in the film, one of Rosemary’s friends (“Hutch”, played by Maurice Evans), thinks he knows what’s going on and wants to meet Rosemary for lunch to give her a book about Upper West Side witches, which he believes implicates her neighbor, Roman Castevet. But Hutch “conveniently” falls into a coma and dies. Hutch’s housekeeper hands the book to Rosemary at the funeral, telling her only that Hutch had said “the name is an anagram” just prior to slipping into his coma. At first Rosemary thinks she means the name of the book, “All of Them Witches”. She goes home and uses some Scrabble cubes to try and piece together the anagram referenced by Hutch. At first, she is unsuccessful.

Then she notices by chance a reference in the book to a teenager, “Steven Marcato” who is the son of one of the suspected “witches” living in turn-of-the century New York. She then re-arranges the Scrabble pieces again, this time converting “Steven Marcato” into “Roman Castevet”. When she realizes the connection, she is convinced that something is seriously wrong (I always get goose bumps when I see this scene.)

Red Ranger, as you know, the author Ayn Rand (“The Fountainhead”, “Atlas Shrugged”) is the Modern Republicans’ writer of choice. Paul Ryan claims her as his intellectual inspiration (despite Rand’s outspoken support for a woman’s right to choose, and her distrust of religion). So imagine my own fascination when I realized that the words “and Ryan”– as in “Romney and Ryan“– is an anagram of (drumroll)….. Ayn Rand.

To take this to its next logical level, is it not safe to assume that the American people, once they learn more about Paul Ryan’s extremist, anarchist, right-wing agenda, will recoil in the same kind of horror that Rosemary herself showed during the film’s climactic scene, when she saw her offspring’s demon-like appearance for the first time. I recall her chilling, tearful question to the coven of witches responsible for the demonic conception: “What have you done to its eyes !?”

To quote your current Commander-in-Chief, “Let me be clear”: I am not implying that Paul Ryan, or Mitt Romney, should be compared to the Devil, or to the little demon spawn that Rosemary laid eyes on in the cradle. If fact, Romney reminds me more of Roman Castevet, the officious neighbor who helped betray Rosemary.

But I’m just sayin’. “Ayn Rand”…. “and Ryan”…. if you don’t believe me, pull out your Scrabble set and try it yourself, Red Ranger.

The Red Ranger: Very interesting concept on your part. I pulled out my Scrabble game but just kept getting Q’s, X’s and Z’s.

It is interesting how you insinuate that Ryan shouldn’t have Ayn Rand as his inspiration since she supported women’s rights and was not religious. I feel the same way when I see supposed Catholics supporting the Democratic party. How can someone of the Catholic faith support any Democratic candidate when the party is so staunchly pro-abortion and gay rights. Right or wrong the Catholic church is clearly anti-abortion and gay rights. If you are Catholic (which I am not) are you allowed to only follow the beliefs of the church that happen to fit in with your own.

As far as Ryan goes it is interesting to see his budget attacked while the Dems in Washington have brazenly broken the laws of the land by not passing a budget since Obama has been in office. How this is allowed to happen is mind boggling to me. While everyone doesn’t need to agree with what Ryan’s budget proposal is at least he has one. If you have not created one of your own you shouldn’t be criticizing his. One of the highlights of Obama’s first and only term has to be seeing his budget proposal voted down by something like 450-0. The only positive coming out of that was that it was the first time that Congress agreed on something in a long time.

Nattering Naybob: You speak of the Constitution. Fine. Have you ever been to the Jefferson Memorial? I visited it this past May with my lovely wife. We had a very nice couple of days walking around DC. It was the Friday prior to Memorial Day and the place was already hopping in anticipation of the Holiday festivities.

The inside walls of the Jefferson Memorial are inscribed with quotes from Jefferson., one of which regards the Constitution and reads to wit: “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and constitutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made , new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance and also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat that fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors”. In other words, Jefferson is admitting that the Constitution is a living document. If he and the other Founding Fathers ever saw the modern Congress in action, they would probably exempt any modern President from complying with any Constitutional law that depended on Congressional approval of any kind.

The Red Ranger: Glad you enjoyed your trip to DC. I am sure that you didn’t run into Obama since it was a long holiday weekend he probably left town to play golf on Thursday. Michelle and the girls were probably off on a shopping trip somewhere.

I know that you would like to excuse Obama from following any rules since you like the rest of the extreme, radical, socialist, left-wingers are brain washed into thinking that anything he wants to do is acceptable. All I can say is that we have these rules in place so we can stop people like him from ruining the country entirely.

Nattering Naybob: You sometimes give me a headache, Red Ranger.