CBN News Reverse-Engineers an Attack on a Climate-Change Scientist to Smear Global-Warming Proponents

Today's broadcast of The 700 Club featured a segment by Pat Robertson's own CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) News on "global cooling," an extreme-minority belief (of course) that not only is global warming false, but that the Earth is actually getting colder.  I'm not going to pretend to have the scientific bona fides to thoroughly debunk this theory, so I'll just direct you to desmogblog.com and their collection of articles on global cooling instead.

But it wasn't enough for Robertson's band of merry right-wing Christian journalists reporters to flog the latest line of b.s. from the anti-warming crowd.  CBN actually took a right-wing slur against a climate-change scientist, flipped it, and claimed it was global-warming proponents making the accusation.

“Climate-change skeptics have been…compared to Holocaust deniers, and even child molesters.”

I've heard the first charge before, and yes, a couple of newspaper columnists made that comparison to drive home the point that the anti-warming crowd is denying the truth in the face of clear and overwhelming evidence.  (Let me say that as a Jew, I take no offense at this comparison.)

But child molester?  Apparently, someone said that too, about Professor Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University:

”Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science.”

EXCEPT: Michael Mann is a global-warming advocate.  The child-molester comparison was not made against a climate-change skeptic, but BY a climate-change skeptic—Rand Simberg of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think-tank that refutes global warming.  The ultraconservative National Review liked the child-molester comparison so much that they devoted an article to it on their blog.  (Simberg has since wiped the quote cited above from the post on CEI's blog, but the National Review article retains the citation. Dr. Mann is currently suing both CEI and National Review for defamation.)

Did CBN deliberately flip the attack on a global-warming advocate into persecution against climate-change deniers, or just misread it?  Who knows.  Maybe a CBN reporter saw someone say something beyond the pale—and assumed it had to come from the left.  They're the ones who make such comments.  Not us on the right! We don't say such things! WE'RE THE ONES WHO ARE PERSECUTED.

Or maybe they just lied in the hopes that no one would notice.  (There's not much critical analysis of CBN, Pat Robertson, and The 700 Club that doesn't originate from Right Wing Watch or this blog no one's reading yet.)

I did also like the part of the "global cooling" story that suggested the Earth was in fact warming up through 1998, implying that global warming used to be valid.  Which was the position CBN took back then, right?  Of course not:

(Note that the person interviewed in that segment right after "science seems to indicate otherwise" is Fred L. Smith, another Competitive Enterprise Institute figure—the founder, in fact—who holds degrees in theoretical mathematics and political science.  Curious how they couldn't find, you know, an actual climate scientist to make those points.)

Finally, I like how CBN still calls them "climate-change skeptics" even though they believe the Earth is getting colder now.  Keeping that terminology just proves that they're grabbing hold of any anti-warming theory that comes down the pike.

See Also—Robertson: Climate Change Is a Myth Created by Money-Hungry Scientists (Right Wing Watch)

Graphic Credit: desmogblog.com

Totally Not Prejudiced Pat Robertson Said Japanese People Are Prejudiced

A regular feature of The 700 Club is "Bring it On-Line," where Pat Robertson answers viewer questions because apparently there are still hundreds of thousands of people out there who think Pat's a fount of wisdom.  It's the most unscripted part of the show—I don't think Pat even knows in advance what the questions will be—and it's been the source of most of the WTF moments he's treated us to in the past year: the AIDS-spreading rings gay people wear, the is-your-son-gay-because-his-coach-molested-him comment, and many others that weren't always about gay people.

On yesterday's show, Pat fielded the question shown above from a white guy who's attracted to African-American women.  And of course the answer got awkward, because old white Southern men aren't all that capable of talking about race without putting their feet in their mouths.

“From a scriptural standpoint, the only problem is, ‘Do not be equally yoked together with unbelievers.’  That's what the Bible says.”

Okay, so far so inoffensive.  And coherent.  But then:

“The skin color.  Asian—they call 'em the yellow race, but they're a little bit off-white.  Black people, a little bit different shade of pigmentation.  Indian—they call 'em the red men, we've got names for all this stuff.  But I think, according to your preference and your love, I would just say in certain cultures, there is a definite prejudice against interracial marriages, and whether it has to do with Indian, or it has to do with Chinese, or it has to do with something else, you'll find a prejudice.  Japanese, particularly.  Prejudiced.  So you're asking yourself to get into a situation of prejudice…”

I've read that five times, and I still don't understand most of that.  But the part about how prejudiced the Japanese are comes out loud and clear.  Not to mention the irony of judging a whole ethnic population and calling them prejudiced.  Anyway, I wonder what my Jewish cousin and his Japanese wife would think of all this.

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Didn't Want to Do the Show If He Couldn't Thump His Bible

You all know about this thing where Phil Robertson, the head hillbilly on "Duck Dynasty" said homosexuality is a sin and now A&E Networks is "suspending" him from future episodes of the show?  I don't have to lay it out for you all over again, right?  Good.  (Note: Despite numerous jokes to the contrary, Pat Robertson is not related to Duck Dynasty's Robertson clan.  Also, I don't watch "Duck Dynasty," so I only have vague conceptions of what the show is like.)

As The Daily Banter points out, after four seasons and hundreds of hours of raw footage, "there’s no way the network didn't know his true thoughts and feelings. He could barely keep them to himself most of the time anyway; someone almost certainly had to work around his commentary that wouldn’t be appropriate for air."

In fact, Phil Robertson's religious beliefs were part of the show from the very beginning.  Just last month, Alan Robertson, Phil's son and a former pastor, joined Gordon Robertson (Pat's son) on his warm-up show, 700 Club Interactive, and said that papa Phil told the Duck Dynasty producers up front that he wouldn't do the show if he couldn't preach along the way:

“When the production company came in for the very first time…and they're telling him about the ideas [for the show]…he held his Bible up, and he said, ‘Is this going to be in?’ and the producers said, ‘Phil, that's a part of your life, whatever's part of your life is going to be on this show.’  He said, ‘If this isn't in, I don't want to do this.’ ”

A colorful backwoods redneck wants to tote his Bible on national television?  Surely he won't say anything that will offend anyone!  Okay, at least not on the show, because TV producers know enough to cut those parts out.  It's when he becomes famous enough to talk on the record outside the show that he poses a problem.  A&E surely had to know he was a loaded gun waiting to go off.

Or maybe they were prepared for this eventuality.  The Superficial puts forward the plausible theory that this is all one big ratings gambit: making Phil Robertson a martyr on the altar of liberal political correctness is just the latest riling up of America's right-wing, and ultimately serves to increase the show's exposure and viewership.  Of particular note is the fact that the rest of the Duck Dynasty family doesn't seem to mind continuing the show without their patriarch, so even they know this is just for show. [Update on this point.]

As I pointed out on my personal Twitter account, A&E subjected Duane "Dog the Bounty Hunter" Chapman to the same "suspension" in November 2007 for using the N-word—but production eventually resumed, new episodes aired the following July, and the show ran successfully for four more seasons as if the whole incident never happened.  So much for any corporate values or standards that A&E might profess.

And in case you were wondering—which I know you weren't—Pat Robertson fully supports Phil Robertson's homophobia.

“I'm one of his supporters, I think he's a terrific guy… What he said is fundamental Christian truth: homosexuality is a sin!  Adultery is a sin!… The Bible makes it very clear that certain things are such that ‘the land will vomit them out’!  Read Leviticus, it's in there very clearly.”

But if you want to laugh, keep that video going and check out how Pat's co-host Terry Meeuwsen thinks that Duck Dynasty's popularity stems from the family's conservative moral values. Yes, that's why people watch the show, not because they want to gawk at hillbillies.  Just like America craved the good wholesome values on "Jersey Shore" a whole two years ago.

Pat Robertson Will Still Be On Your TV Even If They Change the Cable Laws

From National Journal:

It may be more difficult to find televangelist Pat Robertson on your TV dial under a new measure that has been introduced in the House.

Under [the proposed] bill, if DISH Network decides another channel can bring in more money than local Christian network affiliates, it's under no obligation to keep bringing viewers their daily dose of Pat Robertson.

Uh…no, National Journal.  Try again.

There's a bill afoot in Congress to eliminate the "must-carry" law that requires cable systems to provide channel space for all the licensed local broadcast stations in your area.  Because who cares about maintaining diversity or a sense of community when cable systems can make more money with yet another channel filled with reality-TV series about hillbilly duck hunters and tow-truck operators?  Anyway, the stations the "must-carry" law was designed to protect aren't your major network affiliates but those small UHF stations that might carry public broadcasting—or religious programming.  So the association of National Religious Broadcasters is worried that if this bill passes, it will cut millions off from their local Christian TV stations and its programming.  Which is true, if the bill passes, although few think it will.

But the respected Washington publication National Journal thinks this will apply to Pat Robertson and his 700 Club show, probably because he's the only televangelist they know. EXCEPT: The 700 Club is broadcast primarily on the cable channel ABC Family.  When Robertson sold the Family Channel to Fox in 1997 (to become what was briefly the Fox Family Channel), it included a stipulation that the channel's owner must continue to run The 700 Club as long as Robertson's ministry produced the show.  Many local religious TV stations rebroadcast The 700 Club on their own channels, but that is chiefly to reach viewers who don't have cable in the first place.

Must-carry is not what's keeping Pat Robertson on the air.  It's ABC Family that's obligated to bring viewers their daily dose of Pat.

Hahahahaha! A Chinese Man Committed Suicide! Hahahahaha!

So maybe you caught this story yesterday about a Chinese man who leapt seven stories to his death in a shoe-store mall after his girlfriend dragged him around the mall for five hours and didn't want to stop shopping yet.  Pat Robertson heard the story, but his co-host Wendy Griffith apparently hadn't, because when he starts telling it to her this morning, she starts laughing as if it's some funny shopping story.  Of course, that's how Pat set up this story, starting with talk about Xmas Christmas shopping and how his wife singlehandedly keeps the catalogs in business, so Wendy's not really at fault for thinking this is funny.  Wendy's not at fault, anyway.

“I was reading yesterday about China.  They make a big deal about Christmas… So this young couple goes out, and the girl really digs shopping.  So she carried her fiancé along with her for five agonizing hours of shopping.  And he says, 'I just can't do this anymore.' ”

And Wendy laughs, and it's all still funny so far because women loooooove them their shopping and men hate it, amirite people?  Can I get a what whaaaat?

“…So what does he do?  He jumps off the ledge of this three- or four-story department store [sic] and kills himself, he commits suicide!”

You can see that Wendy's genuinely shocked by how this "funny shopping story" turned out—the open mouth agape, the burying her face in embarrassment—yet she's still laughing.  But can you blame her? Pat's a funny guy:

“You've heard of 'shop 'til I drop'?  Well, they did it.”

Soooo Christian.  Suicide is funny when it's shopping!  Or maybe just when it's in China?  I mean, they got a billion more to spare, amirite?  And they all look alike?

*crickets*

Pat Robertson Wants to Take Rand Paul's Doughnuts Away From Him

Photo Credit: Spiegel Online

Yesterday, Pat Robertson lit up a corner of the Internet when a parent wrote in to ask what she should do about her 16-year-old son who just came out as gay, and Pat wondered if maybe her kid is gay because a coach molested him:

“Is there really a biological thing going on, or has he been influenced?  Has a coach molested him?… These kids are in a formative state, and sure, they may have some attractions to people of the same sex—they don't know what they're doing, they're teenagers…”

Disturbing and repugnant to be sure, but is anyone really all that surprised that Pat Robertson resorted to digging up a chestnut about gays having to "recruit" teens into homosexuality?

Meanwhile, over in another corner of the Internet, Tea Party star Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) just launched a new front in his War on Government Protecting Us From Bad Things by claiming that the Food & Drug Administration's decision last week to ban trans fats means the Feds are coming after your doughnuts.  Except, or course, it turns out that most doughnut companies already stopped using trans fats and no one noticed the difference—and we should have all realized that our doughnuts aren't really being threatened because if they were, Chris Christie would be the one sounding the alarm, not Rand Paul.  (No, that was not a "Chris Christie is fat" joke.  It was a "Chris Christie likes to eat" joke.  There's a subtle difference.)

How are these two stories connected?  While everyone was pointing out Robertson's "ask your gay son if he was molested" comment, no one noticed his remarks on the same broadcast supporting the ban on doughnuts trans fats:

“I'm not a great fan of the FDA, I think they make some errors, but in this case, they need to get active and I'm for activism.  I'm sure Mayor Bloomberg will be thrilled—he's getting criticized because of the ‘nanny state,’ but that's a good thing to do.”

Now, some of you may be wondering, Wait a minute, I thought conservatives opposed "nanny-state" Big Government!  Actually, like most religious conservatives, Robertson's all for Big Government—provided that the government imposes what HE wants on everyone's lifestyles.  And not just forcing God and Jesus back onto public schoolchildren (like the good old days when Jews were ostracized and no one cared about Muslims and Buddhists because there were hardly any of them around back then anyway), and keeping you from using contraception because sex is just for procreation, don't'cha know.  No, Robertson also wants to ban porn from the Internet, as it's not, he insists, free speech; prohibit tobacco (because prohibition worked so well with alcohol); and force food-stamp recipients to eat more healthfully, to cite just a few examples.  The Religious Right is completely on board with a "nanny state"—so long as they're the ones playing nanny.

Okay, I don't really think that the American right wing is about to be torn asunder over trans fats and fictional doughnut bans.  But as the Religious Right tries to make common cause with the libertarian wing of the Republican Party—for instance, Pat Robertson's own Christian public-interest law firm is representing over 40 Tea Party groups in a lawsuit against the IRS—the differing approaches to the trans fat ban serves as a reminder that these two factions have philosophies that are fundamentally incompatible in many areas.  And while libertarian Rand Paul might be fighting over the future of the Republican Party with moderate-conservative Chris Christie right now, in two years' time he may find himself outflanked on the right by an evangelical candidate like Rick Santorum.

No, It Is Not News That Pat Robertson Thinks the Earth Is Older Than 6,000 Years

In November 2012, in answer to a viewer question on whether the Bible allows for the existence of dinosaurs (spoiler alert: apparently, it does), Pat Robertson dismissed the idea that the Earth is only 6,000 years old (via Right Wing Watch):

“Look, I know people will probably try to lynch me when I say this, but Bishop Ussher—God bless him!—wasn't inspired by the Lord when he said it all took 6,000 years.  It just didn't.

And you go back in time, you've got radiocarbon dating, you've got all these things, and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time… And so there was a time that these giant reptiles were on the earth, and it was before the time of the Bible.  So don't try to cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years.  That's not the Bible.  That's Bishop Ussher.  And so if you fight revealed science you're going to lose your children, and I believe in telling them the way it was.”

Turns out that for once, Pat Robertson had a prophecy come true, because in June, the Young Earth creationists over at Creation Today lynched him (okay, maybe not lynched exactly) for what he said:

“Do you assume, then, that Archbishop James Ussher had no actual evidence for his proposition when he wrote such a big book?  People talk about this ‘six thousand years that Archbishop Ussher came up with.’  Pat Robertson is claiming, then, that the 6,000 years comes from Ussher's book, not from the Bible.  The point is, where did Ussher get his figure of 6,000 years?… [Y]ou will find that he takes those dates from the Bible!  So the figure of 6,000 years comes from the Bible.  Now then, Pat Robertson, are you claiming that the Bible is not inspired, when the Bible clearly tells us that the world is 6,000 years old?”

The Bible clearly tells us.  I mean, it's so obvious that Archbishop Ussher had to write such a big book to explain it!  Anyway, they go on with a lot more creationist b.s.—most of which turns out to be nitpicking Robertson's choices of terminology—but you get the idea.  (If you keep watching the video, you get to hear one of the creationists actually invoke Occam's Razor in support of God and the Bible and creationism.  Take that, Carl Sagan!  Take that, Jodie Foster!)

As I said, that aired in June, but for some reason The Raw Story only found it yesterday:

Now, I'm not saying this isn't news because The Raw Story is just discovering a spat from 5 months ago (based on a comment made a year ago)—although curiously their article doesn't mention any of these dates, so their readers naturally assume this all just happened.  And why online news syndicators think it's fresh.