This Page

has been moved to new address

The Massive Response

Sorry for inconvenience...

Redirection provided by Blogger to WordPress Migration Service
Bloviating Zeppelin: The Massive Response

Bloviating Zeppelin

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

The Massive Response

Venezuelan President (and I use that term rather loosely) Hugo Chavez came to this country yesterday and proceeded to do nothing but insult our president and our nation.

John Bolton, oddly enough, wasn't present during Chavez's speech. Bolton later said he wasn't sure where he was, perhaps balancing his checkbook or cleaning his fishtank. He also said that people understand it was insulting, but on the other hand people need to draw their own conclusions, and that people know he's not a serious leader. Amen.

And the response from the Mainstream Media? Massive. On front pages everywhere. Outrage! Heresy! Our country insulted! UN out of the US! Never let Chavez back into the country!


From the LA Times. Predominantly silent.

New York Times? Not even on the home page.

Even former President Clinton on Larry "Elbows" King said that Chavez's comments were "unhelpful, undignified and it's not true." D'ya think?

Would this have happened in the 1950s -- even perhaps in the early 1960s? Where is the media in all this? Those on the Left or in the Democratic Party?

Conspicuously silent. But of course they're "above" it all in any event.

How far have we fallen when we either adamantly refuse to support our own country upon attack, verbal or otherwise, or we shrug our shoulders with indifference.

That's why I call them the DEM: Defeatist, Elitist Media.

Shame on them but, on the other hand, their subscribers and readers in all forms are plummeting.



Blogger Gayle said...

It's outrageous, BZ. I don't understand why we let these idiots into our country to begin with! But there's absolutely no excuse for the MSM, none whatsoever. They have made a fortune out of the citizens of this country and what do they give back? Absolutely nothing?

Regarding your meaning of "DEM"; I like it; it's absolutely right on! Although I think I might change the "Media" part to "Morons." Any resemblence to honest reporting in the media has been gone for a long, long time.

Thu Sep 21, 04:50:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

That's why I say, get this: we IMPORT these bastards, pay for their diplomatic immunity, pay for their building, dump $5 billion dollars per year (22% of the total UN support) and, in return, we get tinpot fuckheads like Chavez excoriating us for things LESSER than we HE does in his own country. What do you suppose would happen had any Venezuelan journalist run Chavez over the coals in a like fashion?

I've used DEM for over a year now; I enjoy it muchly.


Thu Sep 21, 04:55:00 PM PDT  
Blogger A Jacksonian said...

What would have happend in the 1950's to 1960's? Khruschev's shoe comes to mind.... later from other Communists: 'Imperial Lackeys' and 'Running dogs of capitalism' and 'We will bury you'.... and just how much did the press in that era react?

That would be interesting to dig up on the American Memory Dial and see just what the comparisons are to today's very PC-ish response. Remember that a lot of press folks had problems saying *anything* bad about 'Uncle Joe' Stalin. Even covered for him here and there, especially in the 1930's. But then Communism was the 'in thing' for the world...

Were there harsh denounciations from the NYT? What *did* Walter Cronkite do during the early 1960's that made him stood out as a stalwart defender of freedom and liberty? His WWII reporting was excellent...'earned his chops' there, but after that? Heartfelt and earnest, to be sure, but to the point of blindness sometimes and ignoring dangers for the immediate problems.

I can still remember the Huntley-Brinkley reports, though very young... both men were very straightforward and earnest. How did they look at those that were trying to demean and destroy the US? Were they so objective as to mask what they thought through journalism? Did they take open and honest stands that journalism is *supported* by freedoms found in the West? From the latter years of Mr. Brinkley one gets the feeling he was getting quite irked at the latest generation of reporters...

When America was verbally attacked, did they spend time finding people to succinctly rebut such attacks? Did they make those verbal attacks a topic of weekend programs?

And that doesn't even begin to touch the pre-Watergate print media. How did the media stand on protecting the *foundations* of freedom, rather than *just* the freedom itself? Amazing how quickly they all went into attack mode during the late 1960's and 1970's and thereon out... Started really bending over backwards to give the USSR a 'fair hearing'... but before that?

Sounds like the basis for a PhD somewhere... "America's changing media from Depression era to the Space Age"

Thu Sep 21, 05:52:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Dionne said...

Well said, I couldn't agree more!!!!!!!

Thu Sep 21, 08:25:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

AJ: Okay, so I'M not the only one who can still remember the Huntley-Brinkley Report: "Goodnight David. Goodnight Chet."

And as you point out, it would be most interesting to find reporting of the times for contrast and comparison. I would fully enjoy doing that. Cronkite today? Not the same man.

Hugh Hewitt had a renowned report from the Washington press on his show, who had the balls to admit that the press mostly does lean left, and the rough representation of liberal to conservation is 15- to 25-to-1 and that, yes, that DOES bring a bias to the press.

Substantiating most everything, naturally, that Bernard Goldberg has said in his two books and that we as Conservatives have clearly known and witnessed for years.

And AJ, if there were ever ANYONE in the entire US who could do a thesis like that justice, I submit it would be yourself. Just for a moment I shall digress: not in years have I read words as scholarly, cogent and well-researched as yours. In a war of words you are the Barrett .50 caliber M82A3 Sniper Rifle to my Dixie straw with single bit of pea gravel.

LMC: By the way, I thought you did an excellent job of attempting to rein-in James as he spoke to Chavez. My commendations to you!


Fri Sep 22, 01:02:00 AM PDT  
Blogger A Jacksonian said...

Mr. Z - My thanks and deeply so. I do my best to not be on *any* side, save that of my Nation and do my best to 'call it as I see it' to *protect* the Nation. Small amount that this is, is it worthwhile and keeps my conscience clear... all rest is precious to me and I do not want an ill mind to wreck my sleep even more than it already is.

The Barrett is a wonderful weapon a mile and more and able to go through cinderblock with just a standard copper jacket. But for close-in combat you want one of those new Israeli jobs, tight, lightweight, low recoil... Arabs found that the AK-47 was not the best thing to have in close-combat... so each weapon has its strengths and weaknesses due to the role it fills.

At work I always considered myself a stealth bomber... low, quiet... carrying a varigated payload and hitting the target and leaving before the target even knew it was hit...

In a world crowded with those wanting the simplistic path of decision, I offer the simple path of honor. Simple means do not necessarily yield simple solutions, and they can be very complex... and yet all stem for honorable actions taken because they are worthy to take. At Mahndisa's site where she had offered a stark rhetorical choice on a topic, I pointed out that We the People are *not* limited to preformulated choices by Our government, religion or, indeed, anything. Any choice dichotomy from inception is false until proven that only two means and methods are available. We the People retain the full suite of rights and responsibilities and, in this Republic, those are to be used *first* to carry out our responsibilities to the Nation and each other. That sentence that begins 'We the People...' is not talking about government, but Our responsibilities. Those come before we recognize *any* right and all rights must be used to ensure that this compact is upheld *first*.

The media, by becoming partisan and betraying the ideals that were set forth for the origins of the NYT have done a grave disservice to the Nation and the World. The ideals that were held forth for factual information to the public in a non-partisan form was the very basis for the NYT in an era of 'yellow journalism'. And now they have become yellow in creed and cowardice and have dragged the rest of journalism down with them.

The facts are not the story... nor is a story necessarily containing all the facts. Throw in analysis and those three, once intermingled, stop offering clarity and non-partisan views. In this era of Ben Franklin, however, We the People, even the poorest and most destitute, have way to voice their grievances. Free public access terminals now allow the poor to join free email and free publication sites and give their voice to the rest of us.

You will never, ever, get that viewpoint, direct and unedited, from a media source of any stripe. In this era of distributed contact, communication and interaction will need arise a new and distributed form of politics. Not 'netroots', but a commonality of thought across people so that those things which make the Nation stronger will have new voice... and those that weaken it will be called to account and lose traction.

That era is just starting.

A joyous time to be alive... if we figure out how to survive, yet again.

Fri Sep 22, 09:59:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

AJ, two words: so true.


Mon Sep 25, 04:48:00 PM PDT  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home