1

Although I don't watch much TV news, I am a newspaper junkie. Usually read 3. Thanks. I needed this!

2

Let's face it: The news-tainment industry is at least as much about ratings and profit as it is about content. There are certainly someintellects as well as some personalities in the field, just as within evangelicalism. They are televangelists not too distinct from Oral or Rod.

3

Good reflection, Joe. I wonder about the implications for the blogosphere. Should those of us with less well-read blogs simply stop blogging and get busy living (Shawshenk Redemption), or is there value in a multiplicity of people trying to reflect on how a Christian worldview should engage the culture? I'm inclined to think the latter. But I think our blogging should not encourage this "daily-ness" and disconnectedness of the modern news media; rather, our blogging should seek to connect the dots and point out the implications of a culture where events X,Y, and Z occur. A reflection of a series of events, rather than the mere reporting of them.

4

Very true. Glad this is being talked about.

5

There's a fine line, I suppose. I think it's nearly as counterproductive to get too much news as it is to get none. That said, consider this: Joe Blow is not necessarily any more or less intelligent than Dan Rather, if Joe Blow doesn't pay attention to the news. But he is far less likely to have an informed opinion about current events if he's not paying attention.

I remember reading a poll a while ago that showed an inverse relationship between support for a repeal of the Estate Tax and knowledge about the Estate Tax: put plainly, the less you knew about the Estate Tax, the more likely you were to support its repeal; the more you knew about it, the less likely you were to support repeal.

The implications of this are troubling, to me at least. If an uninformed (or underinformed) populace comes to precisely the opposite conclusion than an informed populace, there's all kinds of room for potential abuse. People who are underinformed are often actively voting against their desires and interests, without even recognizing that they're doing so.

I'm convinced that part of the reason why our government has been so screwed up for so long is because the general public is underinformed, and in some cases is passionate about issues about which it as a group knows next to nothing. An informed populace is an absolute must if democracy is to work. And we don't have that.

It gets worse because politicos take advantage of this shoddy knowledge. So the president can (for example) make claims about what the "average" tax cut will be, secure in the knowledge that this doesn't mean what most Americans are going to think it means (they hear "average," and think "typical," which couldn't be further from the truth).

6

Hey, I'm a father of two. I'm trying to raise my children in a fruitful way. I feel like I'm always battling the television, and there is so much filth! I filter the internet for my children, but what can I do about television. Does anybody else agree with me here?

7

Hi Mark

I hear you -- I face the same issue.

My first step: cancelling Cable TV. [There is no through the air of consequence here.] But then when kids visit fam and friends . . .

So, step two is to teach them the scriptures and the principles of straight thinking. I also have prepared stuff on media spin.

I think the media today are increasingly filled with exactly what the Apostle Paul warned us against:

RO 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

RO 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

RO 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator . . . .

RO 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

All I can add to that is that electronic images, documentaries, schools and museums are even more effective than the old fashined temples, stone statues and pagan plays that as Augustine warned, taught the people the techniques of vice.

Grace, open our eyes

Gordon

PS to TG: I will not take your distractor up -- other than to say that the ET has a major perverse effect of damaging small family-owned businesses and farms. Why is there a tax on earning, saving, investing, and then dying while having wealth in hand? You may find it interesting to look here and here for issues to follow up on, if you want to do that sort of thing.

8

Gordon:
I will not take your distractor up

Well, actually, you just did. :) Although I didn't intend it as a distractor. It's just the example I could think of. I could have listed any number of others (most of which you would also disagree with). I picked the one I did because I knew about those poll results.

But since you brought it up, the idea of the ET damaging small family-owned businesses and farms is oft-repeated but never substantiated, and in most cases directly contradicted. And thank you for making my point. You repeat a claim that's suspect at best and flat wrong at worst as if it's gospel truth in defending your opposition to the estate tax. That validates my claim that the less you know about it, the more likely you are to support its repeal. :)

9

Where Gordon wisely fears to tread I rush in higgedly-piggedly to ask Tom,"What in the world are you talking about?!?" When you draw your distinction between people who are "well-informed" and "not well-informed" about the estate tax I assume you must mean people who have mastered the political arguments in favor of the estate tax versus those who do not accept those arguments. Warren Buffet has built an empire on the arbritage imposed upon family businesses by the estate tax.

What possible social benefit is there to imposing a 55% tax on a farm worth $3M with a $1M exclusion, merely because the owner died? If the family wanted to continue farming they would suddenly be unable to do so because while the debt-free farm may be able to support that family, it won't also be able to support the $1.1M the heirs would need to borrow to pay the tax. If you can provide a coherent argument why that scenario either does not happen or why it is a desireable outcome I would love to read it.

10

Cheesehead:

Except that the political arguments against the estate tax are mostly BS, as illustrated by Gordon's nonexistent example, and by my FactCheck link, if you bother to read it. The examples given are simply nonexistent.

As for what the "possible benefits" are, there are two: We tax assets when they change hands; that's just what we do. Is it better to tax the estate (less some quite generous exceptions) before it moves to its inheritors, or is it better to tax the inheritance as income for the recipient? The other benefit is that it encourages philanthropy. Not that you're likely to care at all about that.

And if you're going to throw around numbers, at least get them right. The $3M family farm would be subject to a 46% tax after a $2 million exemption. If the tax code were reverted to its 2002 state, it still wouldn't be as high as you claim.

11

I should add that the 46%, 50% and 55% numbers are all maximum tax rates. After various deductions, exemptions, etc., the effective tax rate is much lower. On a $3 million estate, the average effective tax rate was around 6-7%. Even for the largest estates (those > $20 million), the effective rate was less than 23%.

I'd take the anti-tax movement more seriously if they weren't so inclined to use highly misleading numbers.

12

tgirsh: The fact that people utilize {expensive} loopholes like trusts to dodge the tax and thus bring down its effective rate just shows the economic distortion that taxation schemes build into the economy. The current tax edifice creates jobs for many thousands of accountants, lawyers and estate planners. These are for the most part intelligent, educated people who would make great contributions in other fields of endeavor if the demand for their current services weren't so great.

As to you smear about my not caring about philanthropy, ad hominem attack is a very weak form of argument. If you really believe that you care more about philanthropy than me I would be happy to do a private comparison with you of percentages and gross dollar amounts each of us makes in charitable contributions.

13

Have you read Neil Postmans collection of essays One of them really highlights the "now...this" approach to local journalism. Very enlightening, and a good read.