Political/cultural web-sites: An assessment

**Warning: While you'll find nothing objectionable within this post, I have linked and discussed a site and articles that, quite frankly, I find objectionable.**

If you've tripped through any of my blogs, you know I highly tout Townhall.com as a great place to get smart on issues. With few exceptions, most of the columnists write utilizing facts and keep inflammatory comments to a minimum (a few exceptions: Ann Coulter, who in my mind has grown tiresome, and Mike S. Adams and Doug Giles, who I happen to enjoy).

For sake of balance, I offer to you the Huffington Post. I know my brother, who is a liberal/progressive, gets much of his information at that site. This morning, in hopes of being enlightened by rigorous rhetoric on the planks of the Democratic platform, I waded into the Huffington Post this morning.

Thoughts and warnings:

• Outside of the three columnists cited from Townhall, you'll find nothing objectionable on the Townhall site. If there is something remotely edgy, there will be warnings about graphic content, etc. Not so on Huffington's site. It is replete with stuff that you'd not share with your children.
  
• Huffington has ample information on Democratic thought; the second columnist on the list today is Barbara Streisand (compare that with Chuck Norris being a regular at Townhall). Of note though, the argumentation within the columns about why "progressive" application tops "conservative" application is disconcerting. Where inflammatory commentary is the rarity at Townhall, it is the norm at Huffington. What do I mean by inflammatory commentary? Unsubstantiated name-calling. In commenting upon a recent Rush Limbaugh radio broadcast, columnist John Ridley wrote:

  "What is it with bigots that makes them think there is a context for bigotry? When much was made of that paragon of virtue Bill Bennett's assertion "if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country,"

  "Bill and his supporters claimed that statement was taken out of context.

  "No one who wasn't wearing a white hood has ever fully explained to me what the context is for positing the extermination of black children to lower the crime rate."

  Context does matter from right to left and left to right. That is why I will try to link to the sites that I quote so you can see all of what was said...in context! But context and rhetoric are sparse. Cutting the sound-bite, glomming onto the gaffe, and inciting the masses with us/them labels seem to be the tools of the trade for such sites.
  

I found the Huffington Post disturbing. A great example came from the pen of Francis Schaeffer's son, Franky. I admire much of the late theologian and his works. His son has deviated far from the path of his father. The link is here. There is some vulgarity. The article illustrates the name-calling, negative associations, and general lack of support for its assertions common in what comes from the left. Is he effective? Is the Huffington Post effective? Note the comments below Schaeffer's article.

Anyway, there you go. Townhall vs. Huffington. Right v. Left. Red v. Blue. McCain v. Obama. Now, friends, it is incumbent upon us to determine which stands for biblical principles and which does not.