So then Zeus Would be in Favor of Cutting Corn Subsidies?

For 2011, I resolved not to have anything to do with any cable news channel, but particularly CNN becuase CNN was my news source of choice.  I kept that, for the most part, and I'm keeping it into 2012.  I've been much the happier for it.

Still, I usually get on CNN.com a couple times a day to scan the headlines and make sure the world hasn't ended.  I did so tonight, and the title of one article caught my eye.  I am sure it will catch yours as well, as it is written in a mighty big font:

Obama: Jesus would back my tax-the-rich policy

When you read the headline and read the article, it seems that on Wednesday, the day before the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama ascended into heaven, fist bumped J.S. Bach, tipped his cap to Mother Teresa, and shot some hoops with George Washington before going to consult the big JC on his proposed tax policies.  He managed to get back in time for supper and the next morning at the aforementioned breakfast proclaimed that Jesus would be in favor of raising taxes on the rich.

Naturally, I was pretty pissed off at Obama.  I have to admit, there is a sort of self-righteousness hanging about him; he gives of an air that perhaps he hasn't failed America, but rather we as a country have failed him, that he is on another plane of thought and existence, that he indeed may have the keys to Mount Olympus so that he can go and get wisdom from the gods.  This, I thought, was yet another example of that.

But when I dug a little deeper into the matter, I got pissed off at CNN. 

If you actually go through the trouble to read the speech, you'll see that he believes that ethically those who have been blessed financially have an obligation to help those less fortunate, and we all know that Obama, being a progressive (which I don't use here in the negative sense ala Glenn Beck) believes that governemnt policies should embrace those ethics by creating a stronger social safety net.  He goes on to say that he believes that ethic coincides with the teachings of Jesus. 

Here is what he actually says:

"And when I talk about shared responsibility, it's because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it's hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. And I think to myself, if I'm willing to give something up as somebody who's been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that's going to make economic sense.

But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus's teaching that "for unto whom much is given, much shall be required." It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who've been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others."

Interestingly, this is the only time he mentions Jesus specifically.  

But it seems to me here that the religion is not the foundation for Obama's belief (though maybe it is, you can't be sure), but rather in this case it suggests that his beliefs come from a different strain of thought and he is merely pointing out that those strains of thought are consistent with a certain interpretation of one passage in the Gospel of Luke.

That is incredibly different than a man who walks into a room and says "Jesus would back my policy.", which is what the good people at CNN seemed to imply. 

If my original thoughts on the article made me think of Obama's hubris, now I find myself thinking of CNN's.  This is exactly the kind of thing that is going to spark more debate on the tax policy, a "What Would Jesus Do" lightning round that all the Republican candidates will be keen to join in on (provided they don't do their homework and actually read the text of Obama's remarks).  It stirs the pot.  How much interest does CNN have in stirring that pot?  Without "debate", without a constant simmering of tension, there can be no 24 hour news cycle. 

How much does CNN keep those tensions simmering with misleading headlines such as this one, so that they can keep CNN's team of crack analysts gainfully employed?  I mean, what else are 4-10 pompous windbags in suits sitting around a desk going to talk about for hours on end?

Eh.  I guess they could all go work at ESPN.