Grant McCracken has some interesting thoughts on George W. Bush and his most outspoken critics: It’s hard not to notice that no one takes Bush’s Christianity seriously, unless, in my opinion, they take it too seriously. No one seems ever…

Your buddy’s ex-wife’s sister!? Man, that’s got to be a record for “smallest corner on a tragedy ever occupied in an effort to establish one’s deep feeling, personal involvement, and superior perspective.” I would have been more impressed if you’d worked your cleaning lady or your second cousin into the chain somehow, but my hat’s still off.

My own observation is that Fox News is not as jingoistic as it’s detractors make out, and that they cover important news that others (in the US) do not.

Again, my own observation, and I am not an avid consumer of television news. Note I am not talking about the ‘talking head’ shows but the actual news – something I think gets confused in the public mind.

More to the point: when I saw this post pop up in my Bloglines account, and had read it a few times, in order to let it sink in, I had 2 ‘instant’ reactions:
1) Grant will get a loooot of comments on this one, and:
2) Very interesting attempt to try and flip the coin for once, as yes, we are, as Brian puts it, ‘blinded’ by ‘propaganda’ (whatever the political colour)).
On the other hand, what else (more precisely, what better?) can we base our opinion on than our own observations? (as much as that observation can be fooled: i.e. PR/Marketing/spin doctors etc etc, but I don’t want to start splitting hairs)

As one commenter puts it ‘I don’t see any evidence to the contrary’, which in my opinion can be used for either ‘side’ of the discussion, as noble as Grants’ attempt is to try and cut through the coloured info we are getting.
I’ll be frank, I think Dubbya and his office are a bunch of fear- and warmongering bunch of idiots with no idea of the complexity of their own society, thus totally incapable of understanding any other way of thinking then their own (which incidentally many/most/all people do, in order to keep their perceived and constructed social reality intact, but that is (perhaps) another story again, or maybe actually underlining the point of todays post).

For that reason I was struck by one paragraph in Grant’s post in particular:
“He/she accepts that people will behave badly at his/her expense and the expense of his/her presidency. The leader might engage in a blame game, but, really, what would that accomplish? A leader “takes the hit” and moves on to solve the problem.”

Yes, in itself a just observation, for any good and proper leader, whatever his/her background and job, but I can hardly imagine such enlightened pragamatism here, underlining what Tom said: “I continue to question the depth of his thinking in general”

How else could he react anyway, in an internal affair, where (unfortunately) many of those that got hit never had the feeling they were within his attention span, and thus were lead to believe that the failures to lead were intentional?
Bomb it? That would preposterous. In an internal affair like this he and his office could never permit themselves reacting like they have done in any external affair over the last 5 years…

On the other hand, to avoid burning the guy completely to the ground and comfirm my ‘blindness’: I can imagine his reaction to the mayor’s outburst being honest and real.
He got it straight, and perhaps he enjoyed finally hearing somebody giving it straight, instead of wrapped up in politicians’ babble? Perhaps he’d like more people like that, considering his carefully built up image of his “take charge, Texan” ways.
Perhaps it was some sort of eyeopener?

Sorry for my rambling, I realise that perhaps I have underlined Grants’ point of interpretative analysis before actual factual analysis. It’s a complex issue, with many thoughts and webs of association competing for attention.

Just one last thing: if the man is truly a ‘proper Christian’ with regular church going and listening to sermons and all that, wouldn’t we have seen it live on Fox by now? (and reading thorugh the comments, I see the answer already!)
(Or, to twist in another way again, isn’t it possible to be up close and personal with such a man of power? Not that it is completely comparable, but I can walk up to the crown prince here in Denmark in a night club, without getting beaten up by some goons and I can be on my bike next to the Minister of Finance on his bike, both waiting for the light to turn green. Just curious!)

Grant McCracken has some interesting thoughts on George W. Bush and his most outspoken critics: It’s hard not to notice that no one takes Bush’s Christianity seriously, unless, in my opinion, they take it too seriously. No one seems ever…

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land.
Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Powerful sentiments, regardless of one’s religious beliefs.

In my earlier comments I didn’t mean to question the sincerity of the president’s religious faith, only his depth. In that regard, I continue to question the depth of his thinking in general.