21 November 2006

Please, Something to Consider:

Yeah, I'm gonna do something I normally try not to do.....
two political posts in a row.

Comments to that last post were so interesting, I need another hit!

We hear a lot about fear mongering these days.
For heavens sake, we're all so afraid, our comedians are having nervous breakdowns and using racial epithets on stage!
I blame George Bush, don't you?

Lemme back up and make sure I'm clear-
Am I happy with the way things are going in Iraq?
Do I think anyone could have done a better job?
Maybe, but who?
In the last Presidential election, I had a choice between "bad" and "terrible".

I reluctantly held my nose and voted for "bad".

I'm so disappointed in George Bush and other leaders I could scream.
But although I think he's made serious mistakes, I realize his decisions are colored by things I know, and by things I cannot imagine.

One thing I know for sure..... he's dealing with an ignorant constituency.
Do you watch "The Tonight Show, with Jay Leno"?
Ever see the segment he calls "Jaywalking"?
Yeah, it's funny, but in a sad way. It sure seems there are a lot of fools out there.
Does it scare you?
It does me, because I know those folks vote, and I have a pretty good idea, since they're from California, how they vote.

If you get all your news from Jay Leno or David Letterman, or from "The Daily Show", or from Keith Olberman, you're getting a constant bludgeoning of "Bush Lied, people died!"
I know...... I've watched.
I know that if you watch those shows, you won't get the news that the furor over the investigation into republican overseas junkets came to a screeching halt when it was found that many democrats would also be caught in that web.
Or that democrat hopes to pin the "corrupt party" badge on republicans suffered a similar fate when it became obvious the Abramoff scandal would net several democrats if that investigation continued to fruition.

Harry Reid, Jack Murtha, Alcee Hastings and others are a corrupt disgrace to their constituents. Why do we not hear more about them?
Because it doesn't meet the "old media" agenda.
So my friend Neil is correct when he says, in so many words, "a pox on both their houses."

But back to "Bush Lied, people died".
Or, "Iraq is another Viet Nam."
How do we, the old media, insure those statements come true?
By insuring our agenda is front and center, and by ignoring news that doesn't further that agenda.

Let me tell you something that may amaze you.
Something that, if you have any curiosity about you at all, will make you say, "why am I not hearing that on my nightly news?"
And I've already answered that question for you.

What if I were to tell you that over 100 automobiles were being burned in France on a daily basis? Would you believe that?
Surely that's not true, right? We'd certainly hear about that on our "old media" broadcasts, wouldn't we?
No, we wouldn't.

Read this article from the U.K. Times. When the riots first broke out in France, it was big news. Are you surprised to hear that over 100 cars PER DAY are being burned there now?
I was.
And I was more surprised that we haven't heard about that on our news, until I realized the reason why.

OVER 100 CARS PER DAY, AVERAGE! Let's see...... if the rate continues to the end of the year, 100X365 equals over 36,500 cars burned in France this year! Why haven't we heard that?
That's not just big news, that's monstrous news!
But you see..... it doesn't further the agenda-
Bush Lied, people died.
Bush is frightening us.

If we truly knew how much chaos and disruption there is in our world, we might realize that accusations of "fear mongering" ring pretty hollow.
Regular readers know what I mean when I say, "Froggy, isn't the water beginning to be a little too warm for you?"

Jump outta the water, Frog!
Wake up, people!


Flightfire said...

Ok, I'll bite.

I've been meaning to post here since the elections, but there hasn't been much commentary. I thought maybe you were suitably chastened, but I guess not.

To comment on the first post, when the Iranians say that the Democratic victory was a victory for Iran, they are only echoing what every other country and the American people have said. This was a victory for the world because it was a blow to George Bush. Bush is an idiot, he will always be an idiot, and his legacy will be as an idiot. We are safer with his power checked and we will be much better off when he is gone. You have freely admitted as much.

As far as the fear-mongering. What does 100's of cars burning in France have to do with the fear-mongering that is going on here? Are you trying to make the connection that these riots in France will lead to another attack on the United States? That's a stretch. Yeah, the riots are fueled by islamic militarism, but even the article says that the riots would probably not be in existence if those people had jobs. There are no jobs because of France's idiotic labor laws.

Now let's examine the connections that you and Republicans have been trying to make. It seems like the basic premise is "If you elect the Democrats, there will be another terrorist attack." First, I am not afraid of terrorists. You have a greater chance of dying by being struck by lighting 15 times than dying in a terrorist attack. It's like being afraid of rabid parrots carrying Ebola from Antarctica. You can't let your life and your vote be decided by something like that.

Second part to be continued...

Greybeard said...

Thanks so much for your comment.
I look forward to installment #2!

Flightfire said...

Ok...continuing on with the point about trying to make a connection between Democrats and a terrorist attack. What have the Republicans done that has made our country that much safer? They've created the Dept. of Homeland Security which is the most monstrous, corpulent arm of the Republican's disgustingly huge government. They started the Iraq war. Which pretty much speaks for itself these days. And they talk really loud and beat their chests about victory. None of that has made our country any safer.

The way to make our country safer has three parts. First, energy independence. This one speaks for itself. Second, border, container, and personal security. This has been done pretty well, but is only a stopgap. And the last and most important way to stop terrorism is to attack it at it's roots. This doesn't mean sending the army to occupy a Muslim country. It's a marketing strategy. We need to be sell America as the kind, generous and strong power instead of the angry, vengeful, defensive power. That's much more difficult than just sending in the artillery, but it would be much more effective in the long run.

And last, to address the point of old media. Conservatives rail against the media establishment as being another arm of the "liberal conspiracy." But where else are we supposed to get our information? I read the Economist, I check blogs regularly (even conservative blogs), and I try to talk to people who have been to newsworthy areas. I have friends in Iraq, Afganistan, and Thailand right now, so I know the situations aren't as bad as the news makes them out to be, but my friend in Iraq had to lay on the floor of his bunker in body armor while the Green Zone was being shelled. It's not pretty. I feel like I'm pretty well informed, but if conservatives have some secret media source that is so much more accurate and doesn't start with FOX or end in Limbaugh, then I am all ears.

Flyin Dutchman said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Flyin Dutchman said...


Its been a great read lately with all the politics. Helps me as a Canadian to figure out what the hell is really going on in the US.


“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

— Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Göring during the Nuremberg Trials.

Greybeard said...

Just to make sure everyone knows-
FD deleted his first comment, not me.

So, FD,
They catch a guy coming across the Canadian border headed to L.A. in 2000, destined to blow something up during our Millenium celebration.....
Richard Reid tries to blow up his shoes on a flight coming to the U.S....
An airplane runs into the South tower of our World Trade Center....
An airplane runs into the North Tower of our World Trade Center.....
An airplane runs into the Pentagon....
An airplane, intended to crash into the White House, crashes into a field in Pennsylvania when passengers try to subdue the hijackers.....

"Tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the Pacifists"?

Believe me, Pal. I didn't need my government to tell me a damn thing.
I sorta figured it out on my own.

Flyin Dutchman said...

My comment was more on the response to September 11th.
We need to go get Saddam Hussein and his WMD's so who's in. Then the Al Qaeda Saddam link....wait there isn't one.

Technically Bin Laden isn't even wanted in connection for Sept 11 attacks according to the FBI.
(it must be covered in other terrorist acts).

Like you said what you hear in the news strengthens their agenda so you hear what they want and need you to hear.

Then years later, wait he had no WMD's our initial "reason" to go to war. Then finally he had no connection to Al Qaeda either.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

Flyin Dutchman said...

To add...

I am not saying Osama and Saddam are good people by any means nor that Osama wasn't responsible for the attacks.

I was just getting at the fact that any case can be made and potrayed in the media to get support for anything.

But Sept 11 was horrible and something does need to be done about protecting America as there is a threat. I just hope something of that or less magnitude never happens again.

Greybeard said...

C'mon FD!-

"But there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans."

The link is here

Greybeard said...

Oh, and by the way....
This "they had no WMD" crap.
How do we know that, please?
We have already found WMD's although I will grant that so far they are apparently pre-2003 invasion. But do you honestly believe that because they haven't yet found them, there were NONE?
Man, I wouldn't want to bet my life on that!
In a country as big as Iraq, they could hide those things a million times.
Yeah, we haven't found them.
But to take the giant leap that there were none..... I personally don't want to do that.
The NY Times, (UGH) has reported that Saddam's scientists had the proper formula to reconstitute their nuclear weapons program just as soon as the IAEA folks packed their bags and left.
Why didn't Saddam just let them inspect, then leave.... hmm?
In your best Dana Carvey voice now-
"Because he DID have something to hide?"
I suspect that's the case.

Greybeard said...

Sorry, the first page to that link is

Flyin Dutchman said...

From the link.....
Editor's Note, 1/27/04: In today's Washington Post, Dana Milbank reported that "Vice President Cheney . . . in an interview this month with the Rocky Mountain News, recommended as the 'best source of information' an article in The Weekly Standard magazine detailing a relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda based on leaked classified information."

So the evidence touted by the VP of the USA gets re-directed to an article written by a journalist ?

Amazing that information that is top secret gets leaked to the media if its in favour of their cause. The Weekly Standard is owned by Fox News so you may as well get that info from the National Enquirer.

Either way Saddam is gonna be swinging soon and that can't be a bad thing.

Greybeard said...

Okay, FD:
You'd be more comfortable with another source?
Even in an article which attempts to refute strong connections, they admit there WAS a connection-

"The Senate investigation did report the CIA found Iraq’s small-scale, sporadic interaction with al Qaida is impelled by mutual antipathy towards the United States and the Saudis."

That link is here

And by your suggestion, should I ignore totally what The New York Times, The Washington Post, The L.A. Times, and others report, simply because they lie and have become de facto mouthpieces for the democrat party? (And they have, ya know!)