Repeating something ad nauseum doesn’t make it true

By Jennifer J. Foster

Regular readers of this space know that there is little that is more irritating to me than when people spread falsehoods through e-mail, conversation or other publication.

Most times, people who are guilty of this simply don’t take the time to fact-check the allegation du jour—even though in the Internet, they already have all the resources they need at their fingertips.

Many of the most outrageous allegations (shockingly, they’re also the most popular) are debunked straightaway with a 30-second Google search.

But sometimes, people who spread falsehoods do it by choice. They reason with themselves that their actions are defensible because to them, their ends justify their means.

The former is regrettable and annoying; the latter is indefensible.

So imagine my aggravation with the Rev. Jim Evans’ most recent column, “Faith in a time of fear,“ which appeared in the Anniston Star yesterday and appears in today’s Opelika-Auburn News.

More than a few News readers have observed that Evans’ column might more appropriately be placed on the editorial page, rather than on the religion page, since it seems that he always manages to fold a certain political viewpoint into his reflections on religion.

True to form, Evans kicks off his column this way:

We are living through some fearful days, and the stress of it is beginning to show. Fear often manifests itself as anger, and with the sheer magnitude of anxiety free floating in our culture we should not be surprised as fear bursts forth in fits of rage.

And not just at John McCain and Sarah Palin rallies, though the fear at those events is pushed forward with a certain raw determination. Barack Obama has been implicitly and explicitly maligned as “not one of us.“ This creates fear, for if he is not one of us, then of what “them” is he?

As a result, the anger at McCain and Palin rallies is palpable. Shouts of “kill him” and “treason” at the mere mention of Obama’s name is not exactly the stuff of reasoned political discourse.

One problem: No one shouted “‘Kill him’ at the mere mention of Obama’s name” at Sarah Palin’s rally this week—unless Evans knows something the United States Secret Service doesn’t.

From the Wilkes-Barre (Penn.) Times Leader:

The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.

The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Obama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him” ...

Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.

“I was baffled,” he said after reading the report in Wednesday’s Times-Tribune.

He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton.

Slavoski said more than 20 non-security agents were interviewed Wednesday, from news media to ordinary citizens in attendance at the rally for the Republican vice presidential candidate held at the Riverfront Sports Complex. He said Singleton was the only one to say he heard someone yell “kill him.”

The Times Leader reported that ABC, the Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” repeated the allegation.

Ah, fact-checking is overrated. Rumors are more fun to spread, anyway—right?

This ought to be fun

By Jennifer J. Foster

Get your DVRs ready: Sarah Palin will appear on “Saturday Night Live” tonight.

I heard a couple of pundits this week discussing the possibility that Palin would go to Tina Fey’s turf. Both generally agreed that it was a good idea, though one went so far as to say that if he was advising the Obama campaign, her appearance on “SNL” would concern him, since she’s personable and will likely charm viewers beyond anyone’s expectation.

I’m not sure I agree on either count. Palin may be personable and charming on her own (since I’ve never met her, I don’t know). But on the “SNL” set, she’s at the mercy of the writers, who may choose to protect her—or not. They took it easy on Olympic swimming champion Michael Phelps. But he was hosting; Palin is expected to appear in a cameo. Phelps is an athlete; Palin is a much-lampooned politician. And then there’s that issue of Phelps’s seven gold medals ...

Also, live television can be very unforgiving. That’s just one reason why I am having a hard time with the idea that a candidate who was sequestered from the national media for about three weeks after her nomination to the Republican ticket is going to appear on a national, late-night comedy sketch show—and in the waning days of the campaign, when there’s little to no time to undo any damage that may be done.

Sink or swim, Sarah Palin’s turn on “SNL” will be worth a look. If you’re not a night owl, set your DVRs now: “SNL” comes on at 11:30 p.m. ET on NBC.

Stupid people

By Jennifer J. Foster

Several years ago, when I was teaching high school English, Jonathan Swift and “A Modest Proposal” were part of the curriculum for 12th graders. As part of that study, I gave my seniors an assignment that required them to write a satire using exaggeration for effect.

One of the brightest students in any of my classes turned in a brilliant essay that was—as Swift’s “Proposal” was—as disturbing as it was creative. His proposal involved a system wherein Americans would be classified by numbers as they reached puberty. Their “ratings,“ from 1 to 5, would be based on various factors, including their physical appearance and their intellectual capabilities. The result would be a stratification system that dictated their mating potential; 5s could only mate with 5s, 4s with 4s, and so forth. Citizens unfortunate enough to score the dreaded 1 rating would be sterilized on the spot.

There were other details: People would be required to carry their rating identification card with them at all times, upward mobility through the rating system (to “platinum status”) was possible for 3s and 4s through the completion of various random and menial tasks, etc. But the point was that the system would gradually eliminate the weakest members of society through attrition.

My student earned an A+ for that essay. I think I still have a copy of it somewhere—I thought that much of it.

I tell you all that to say this: Sometimes, as ridiculous and wonderfully satirical as Joe’s essay was, I think about it when I read and hear about certain people in the world today.

Take, for example, Mark Ciptak of Elizabethtown, Tenn.

Mark Ciptak and his wife were expecting a baby, a little girl they planned to name Ava Grace.

The baby was born a week ago yesterday. Mark Ciptak had one job: Fill out the birth certificate.

That baby girl’s name is now Sarah McCain Palin. 

Oh, it’s not as bad as it seems, Ciptak insists; he was going to name the baby girl “John McCain Palin,“ her gender notwithstanding.

But he opted for the girl name, because, as he told the press, he thought it was “maybe too overboard.“ He decided to go with two weeks in the doghouse instead of two months, he said.

Why the doghouse? Because he decided on his own to forego the aforementioned agreed-upon name for the couple’s baby daughter ... His wife thought her daughter had been named Ava Grace.

If there’s any hope for this poor baby girl, it’s that the Tennessee Department of Health allows the family to change her name with an affidavit for her first year of life.

Of course, Mrs. Ciptak will have to keep her husband far, far away from the affidavit—to be sure that he doesn’t change her name to Affi Davit.

You know, I bet at least one person in the family is going to get a name right: It’s going to be Mark Ciptak’s wife, who spells his name correctly—on his tombstone.

Read this story and see the video here.