One Man Watching

Vol. 2, no. 3

A recurring commentary on politics, faith, and culture

March 31, 2001

EDITOR'S SIDEBAR

She was the love of his life.

There are many things that could be said to describe my step-mother, May Pardee. She loved her grandchildren. She liked to square dance. She collected dolls. She loved her dogs. She enjoyed doing needlework. These are just a few of the parts that made up her whole.

When I remember her, though, this is what I remember most. I remember that way my father loved her, and the way he cared for her, even after the months of illness extended into years.

May passed away last month after a six-year illness that left her with lungs too worn out to keep breathing. Mercifully, she went peacefully and without pain with her loved ones at her side.

Now comes the time for those of us who remain to move on, but as we move on, we take with us that part of her we knew, and we cherish the memories.

Mostly, though, we realize that she was the love of my father's life, and that love will remain beyond her lifetime.

Brad Pardee
Editor

If you have any feedback, I'd love to hear it. Contact me at:
[email protected]

A Rose By Any Other Name ... Would Get Better Press

I remember a story that ran some time ago on Entertainment Tonight. It was after the theatrical release of either "The Last Temptation of Christ" or Hail Mary". I don't' remember which.

What I do remember is that Leeza Gibbons' story began with footage of the Nazis burning books back in the 1930s. She then compared this to the Christians who were protesting the film.

Were the Christians suggesting that the film should be banned, or that the government should intervene to remove it from circulation? No. They were saying that the film was an attack on the historical Christian faith, and that people should boycott it.

Was the comparison fair? No, but it reflected the tone of much of the commentary I heard at the time.

Fast forward now to last month at the Grammy Awards. Gay activists, who objected to the virulently homophobic lyrics of the rap artist Eminem, were protesting the Grammys.

Were the activists suggesting that his recordings should be banned, or that the government should intervene to remove them from circulation? No. They were saying that the lyrics were hateful, and they shouldn't be rewarded with a Grammy.

Were they compared to book-burning Nazis or any other group of censors? No.

What was the difference? Could it be that the entertainment industry is sympathetic to gay activists, and is therefore more inclined tolerate their protests, even when they don't agree? Could it be that the entertainment industry has no such sympathy toward Christians, particularly conservative ones, hence the comparison to Nazis?

But that would suggest hypocrisy, a double standard by the entertainment industry.

You be the judge.

One Man Watching: 2nd Look

"Faithful are the wounds of a friend." Proverbs 27:6a (King James Version)

In the last issue of One Man Watching, I was critical of comments made by Terry McAuliffe, the new chairman of the Democratic Party. He claimed that Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, Jim Baker, and the Supreme Court had tampered with the Presidential election in Florida in order to give the victory to George W. Bush. In response, I said, "If the Democrats succeed in using slander, innuendo, and outright falsehood to gain political power, they will not be alone for long."

I have some faithful friends, though, friends who are willing to offer correction when I need it. One of those friends is Dan'l Danehy-Oakes. He wrote to me, "Can a reasonable person reasonably believe that Harris, Bush, Baker, and/or the Supremes did tamper with the election result? … If you are unwilling to consider the possibility that a reasonable person might honestly believe … that the decision was motivated by politics rather than law … then I would have to question whether you were yourself a reasonable person."

He is quite correct. In my piece, I did not consider the possibility that Mr. McAuliffe genuinely believed that there had been tampering, so I have been rethinking my position in that light.

As I said in my piece, I have yet seen any conclusive evidence of tampering. I have no idea what Jim Baker or Jeb Bush did that could have constituted tampering. As far as Katherine Harris and the Supreme Court are concerned, we know that the Gore camp and the Democratic Party leadership believed that their decisions were wrong. They are entitled to that belief and to express it.

However, tampering is more than just ruling in a way that one side or the other does not agree with. It requires deliberate intent and willful action. When it takes place, it is a reflection not of differing views of the law but of a lack of character and integrity. If Mr. McAuliffe is going to make the accusation that there was tampering, he needs to have evidence beyond simply saying that he didn't agree with the decisions, and if he has that evidence, he has the responsibility to present it. So far, all we have are assumptions that, because the parties that ruled against him were Republican, they must have been politically motivated.

I must admit to a bit of cynicism at this point. Whether Mr. McAuliffe genuinely believes there was tampering or not, I imagine that it is easier to rally the troops with "We were robbed" than with "They made a mistake", and I have my doubts if, in any situation, he would withhold his rhetoric unless he could substantiate it.

This is, however, a hypothetical question, a "what if" that we can't know the answer to. Consequently, I stand corrected in my assessment of Mr. McAuliffe's comments. I would say, though, that if he is going to make those kinds of accusations without presenting evidence to back them up, he runs the risk of having his own motivations questioned.

Page last updated March 31, 2001

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws