Tuning Out - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Tuning Out

Re: Jennifer Rubin’s The Skinny on Katie:

Rats! I clicked on Jennifer Rubin’s piece licking my chops and looking forward to a luscious litany of all the things we loathe about the gummy one — you know, lack of hard news experience, lack of news judgment, bias on parade, evident self-absorption, and that whole disturbing thing about her alleged good-looking gams — only to read a rather obvious navel-gazing essay about the splintering of the media. Oh well, the day is still young and there’s still time to go out and kick some cute little bunnies.
C. Vail

Perky Katie and her compatriots and CBS would never consider an alternative producer for the evening news broadcast. Why? Because they think they are the balance! They like the idiot Democrat party of Nevada think that FOX is a conspiracy rather than a news outlet. FOX probably has as many center-left types as a typical broadcast outlet, but fortunately, they also have Brit Hume.

Until someone can articulate an obvious difference between the template and tenor of news ‘reporting’ offered by; CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, or CNN, it doesn’t matter which one you watch, with the exception of FOX, the others all sound and look the same.
P. Aaron Jones
Huntington Woods Michigan

I gave up watching the network nightly news shows back about 2002 or so. I vaguely remember the last one. Something happened (it was all Bush’s fault), something else happened (it was all Bush’s fault), and still something else happened (where it was all Bush’s fault but there was no logical reason to mention his name at all).

Since then the only nightly news shows I’ve caught were all beginnings, where I wasn’t quite quick enough with the remote to switch to something else before they came on. Fox News puts on quite a few dissenting liberal voices. I just wish they would do nightly news themselves.
Robert Nowall
Cape Coral, Florida

Nice touch with the “news ghettoes” angle. But you’ve got to be kidding to think that the Left or Liberaldom really has the guts to inject true opposing views into their staged news.

It could happen. But I’m guessing ice-skates rentals in hell well rise dramatically before we’ll see true thrusts and parries in political discourse in the next two years. Lots of blaming, mudslinging, the usual refusal to answer questions and putting lots of things on the don’t-ask-don’t-answer shelf. But informative? The Left, liberals and their allies can’t afford that.
C. Kenna Amos
Princeton, West Virginia

The ‘Crat bug out on the Nevada debates is a priceless gift to reasonable Americans, and a profits windfall waiting to happen for Fox News. Fox News should now issue a clear advisory to the ‘Crats: Show up and abide strictly by the format, or the debate will go on without you. Using direct quotes from the ‘Crat presidential power-grabber wannabes so originally invited, positions can be easily stated and rebuttals made in favor of their respective positions. No need to be concerned about the public loosing an opportunity to view all candidates “under fire.” The ‘Crats will have made that case themselves by boycotting the debate. They haven’t the confidence of their positions holding up under direct, non-filtered, challenge. ‘Crats are, and for the past 20-30 years have been, control freaks and cowards (as especially exemplified by Rodham Clinton) … they can either prove it by showing up or not showing up.
Carl Gordon Pyper

Frankly, I could care less about CBS and Katie. I haven’t watched a network news broadcast in over a decade; but feel free to inform us when she finally gets canned. However, what is truly remarkable is the balkanization of our society by the Left and the MSM, in their attempt, by the sheer use of raw intimidation, to remove from the public debate any and all perspectives and view points contrary to the hermetically sealed hegemony they have created for themselves. From Al Gore to MoveOn to elite universities, the Left insists on pretending we don’t have anything to offer. Sorry, we do, and we will continue to remind you just how morally and intellectually bankrupt you all have become. Get used to it.
A. DiPentima

And the point was?
Laney Bormel
Owings Mills, Maryland

Re: Lisa Fabrizio’s Resent or Repent?:

Lisa’s article was way out of line. Sean Hannity was set up by a priest who commits public scandal by accusing Hannity of violating the Church’s teaching on birth control. He presents no evidence aside from his assertion. Hannity says he would prefer non-Catholics using birth control to getting an abortion, and may fail the lesser of two evils test, but that was not the accusation the priest made. Sean Hannity is strongly pro-life, and being attacked by the priest affiliated with Human Life International is an abomination. The priest needs to apologize for his accusations which should never have been made publicly. His assertion at the end that he would deny Hannity communion is absolutely absurd. Time for Fr. Euteneuer to read up about the Eighth Commandment.
Bill Bowman

Fr. Euteneuer did no more than fulfill his obligation as a Catholic priest by publicly admonishing Sean Hannity for his public endorsement of contraception. That more priests don’t have the you-know-what to unapologetically proclaim this tenet of Catholic Christianity (and, indeed, of all of Christianity until well into the 20th century, when the mainline Protestant denominations began to “catch up” with the secular world, as they are sadly wont to do) should not be taken by the likes of Hannity as a legitimate ecclesial wink and a nod to its unimportance. No indeed; if Mr. Hannity would but only take some of that time that he surely devotes daily to perfecting his smugness routine to instead read Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, he might be surprised at the accuracy with which this Pope was able to predict the true ills that would befall society upon the widespread unnatural de-linking of sexuality’s dual purpose of unity and procreation. The ’60s sexual revolution has been a scourge upon the family, most particularly where women and children are concerned, and mass contraception has been its proverbial sugar daddy.

The episode in question, including Sean’s ludicrous “abstinence equals contraception” argument, exemplifies the true infantility of many, many Catholics’ grasp on this question, and on one or two others besides, abortion coming most immediately to mind. They forget that the proper order of things is the Church informing society, not the inverse. Would that there were more Fr. Euteneuers out there who care as much about saving both souls and society!
Francis M. Hannon, Jr.
Melrose, Massachusetts

Among the really great things about life are:

1) No one has to eat liver and onions …but some do.

2) No one has to listen to Katie Couric newscasts…but some do.

3) No one has to be a Catholic…but many, many are…with great satisfaction.
Joseph W. Holmes
Cedar Park, Texas

Protestant or Catholic, being a Christian in today’s America is challenging. But so what? That comes with the territory. It requires stances that offend the world. It invites ridicule, censure, rejection and rebuke. It requires courage and strength. So it appears that the priest did what any Christian should: He reminded someone else, regardless of their religious affiliation or not, of the sanctity of life. Hurrah!

By the way, the Apostle’s Creed does not refer to the “holy Catholic church,” as in the Roman Catholic Church, but rather the “holy catholic church,” as in the universal body of Christ on earth.

And, respectfully, Jesus in speaking to Peter did not mean that the gates of hell would not prevail against just the Roman Catholic Church, which didn’t exist when the Christ said that to Peter. Jesus meant that His church on earth would prevail, regardless of who His followers might be and regardless of the shingle that hangs outside the physical place where His followers assemble.
C. Kenna Amos
Princeton, West Virginia

We Protestants usually have the good sense of keeping our hypocrisies hidden out of sight. Heaven knows we like mischief too much to completely keep all the laws our respective faiths require of us. We may have a twinge of guilt as we profess purity from lust while we are looking up the dresses of the young women in the front row; but we would never make our dark impulses public lest these females will start wearing slacks — or at least underpants.

Thus, imagine our mystification at the Catholic obsession with publicly arguing that even though they consciously reject a major body of the teaching of Rome they remain “Good Catholics.” Barbra Streisand! Of course they’re bad Catholics. They should glory in it and take that ride for all its worth. We all have our guilty pleasures. Why spoil it all by fessing up and letting it all hang out.

If we Protestants were under the same requirements to be “open to life” while partaking of the joys of married life, we would rather swear we don’t have many [or no] children because the equipment don’t work rather than owning up that we make for horrible Christians.

If on the off chance our secret is disclosed our fellow brothers and sisters in the congregation, we can pick up and move on to the next church down the road with our new brothers and sisters none the wiser. You Catholics are…stuck. Sure, you could start going to the next Catholic Parrish on the other side of town; but you already have broadcasted spitting on the Popes ring for one and all to see.

Most confusing of all, when Catholics proudly profess their “freethinking” from Rome to one and all they still can’t bring themselves to cut the apron strings from the Mother Church. When it is suggested these free spirits should go seek another denomination more respective to their beliefs, a look of horror crosses their faces as if to say: “What! And leave show business?!!!”

I guess the last thing any Catholic (good, bad or otherwise) would do is take advice from a Protestant. Maybe there is some upside in being so “right out there” with your transgressions in the presence of your fellow Catholics. Maybe. Somehow I doubt it.
Mike Dooley

I don’t watch Hannity & Colmes, so I am relying on your account of the exchange between Mr. Hannity and Fr. Euteneur. Like so much of our current discourse on religion and politics, it sounded vitriolic.

I believe all Christians, regardless of denomination, would do well to think long and hard about Jesus’ relationship with the scribes and the Pharisee as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew. Contrary to popular opinion, these men were not more evil than others; in fact, they were the most “religous” people of their day and many scholars think they went to extraordinary lengths to follow every aspect of their catechism. So why did Jesus have such a problem with them? Because their institutions, rules and teachings insinuated themselves between ordinary people and God’s grace. When Jesus pointed out this fact, they began their successful quest to have him eliminated. They thought his teachings were wrong and, I suspect, they were not happy to have their power and privilege undermined.

Today, churches of all strips teach that one must hue to their teachings and practices or risk eternal damnation. This is curious given the fact that Jesus so resolutely refused to adhere to “religious” rules, regulations and doctrines when confronted with genuine human need requiring His grace. Are we not to imitate Jesus as best we can?

We Christians should not be about drawing lines in the sand dividing people into groups of the saved and the damned. That is presumption and arrogance at its worst. Like the people who were ready to stone the prostitute, we would do well to drop our stones and focus on our own shortcomings. Nor should be dawn the mantel of victimhood. It doesn’t fit well on those who believe in God’s grace.

Our challenge is not to become modern day scribes and Pharisees, people who turn our particular denomination’s teachings, doctrines, practices and polity into an idol.
Mike Roush
North Carolina

As a 50+ member of the Roman Catholic Church, married 30 years to the same man and proud parent of two adopted sons, one would think that I wouldn’t have a dog in this fight. Especially since I don’t watch television, especially any Washington gasbags. But I do think that often in “defending the faith” we forget that Jesus came and established his Church to provide salvation through the forgiveness of sins, not by trying to prevent sins from ever taking place.

One cannot read the New Testament without stumbling over the importance of forgiveness. Jesus said to forgive wrong done to you not 7 times 7 but 77 times 7. The Prodigal Son didn’t get his words out of his mouth before his father forgave him. The Lord’s Prayer: “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Jesus’ words on the Cross, “forgive them for they know not what they do”.

Perhaps if those of us, with our sins, who love the Church can find ways to call to people, in their sin, as lovingly as Jesus the Good Shepherd, there would indeed be more salvation. But it wouldn’t make for good television, now would it?
Diane from the Star of the North

BRAVO!!!! Lisa
Annette Cwik

Sign up to receive our latest updates! Register

By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: The American Spectator, 122 S Royal Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314, http://spectator.org. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!