It is run-off day in Georgia and Saxby Chambliss needs every vote to avoid a Minnesota-style cliff-hanger.
So call or e-mail your pals in Georgia and remind them to get over to the polls.
Shmuley Boteach pens a column certain to spark debate across the theological spectrum. (HT: Contentions.) Two paragraphs from the column:
As for my Christian brethren who regularly quote to me Jesus’ famous saying, “Love your enemies,” my response is that our enemies and God’s enemies are different parties altogether. Jesus meant to love those who steal your girlfriend, cut you off on the road or swindle you in a business deal. But to love those who indiscriminately murder God’s children is an abomination against all that is sacred. Is there a man who is human whose heart is not filled with moral revulsion against terrorists who target a rabbi who feeds the hungry? Would God or Jesus ask me to extend even one morsel of my limited capacity for compassion to fiends rather than saving every last particle for their victims instead?
Could God really be so unreasonable, could Jesus be so cruel, as to ask me to love baby-killers? And would such a God be moral if He did? Could I pray to a God who loves terrorists? Could I find comfort in Him knowing that He offers them comfort as well? No, such a god would be my enemy. He would abide in Hades rather than heaven. And I would be damned before I would worship him. I will accept an eternity in purgatory rather than a moment of celestial bliss shared with these beasts.
The Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stevens wonders whether terrorists are absorbing the worst narratives about their enemies that the media can serve up, thus allowing the killers to justify to themselves their atrocities.
Sensationalism can have terrible consequences, Stevens warns:
But it’s worth wondering why a media that treats nearly every word uttered by the U.S., British or Israeli governments as inherently suspect has proved so consistently credulous when it comes to every dubious or defamatory claim made against those governments. Or, for that matter, why the media has been so intent on magnifying genuine scandals (like Abu Ghraib) to the point that they become the moral equivalent of 9/11. Some caution is in order: Terrorists, of all people, might actually believe what they read in the papers.
I still haven’t found one MSM article pondering whether the New York Times’/Los Angeles Times’ compromise of the Swift program two years ago might have made the task of tracking and discovering the Mumbai terrorists more difficult. It is the sort of question I guess we shouldn’t expect the MSM to ponder.
Perhaps after terrorists strike the U.S. with WMD, media critics will begin to wonder whether the self-anointed guardians of the truth within the MSM were really serving the public’s interest or their own.