If you're lucky or persistent...

There is a sad reality in our national "mainstream" media today.  They lean so far left that they have abdicated their role as fact-checkers or reporters of truth.  The people who only listen or watch their broadcasts are sadly uninformed or purposely misinformed about reality.  One can use other resources to find information, but it requires making an effort--many don't bother.  

According to the media, only white people can be racist or commit hate crimes.  And those who are classified as "white" could change depending on the view of the media.   It's a warped view.

The media is encouraging the dumbing-down of information.  I'm seriously worried about the condition of our gene pool--it seems to be getting very shallow.

Disturbing misogyny

A number of things in the presidential race media coverage have struck me. There are two that I found particularly annoying.

First, the double standard of an already disturbing misogyny. A conservative radio personality reacted to a D.C. college student's complaint that she needed help paying for birth control. He called her a slut.

Okay, I don't know much about that student--and I suppose neither did he--so the name calling was unacceptable. I guess he has since apologized, but the liberals and their accompanying media went nuts. As though they had no idea he ever said anything controversial.

Then something really interesting happened. A liberal woman wrote a column saying that the liberal left was just as bad--maybe worse--at misogyny and racism. She named names and gave examples. A news commentator/entertainer has repeatedly demeaned Hilary Clinton, referring to her as a "she devil," "Nurse Ratched," and "witchy," among other things. A liberal radio personality said Sarah Palin "set off a bimbo alert" and called Laura Ingraham "a right-wing slut." Another (whose name you would recognize) said that a conservative commentator "should have been aborted by her parents." The same man called Michelle Malkin "a mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick" and thought it appropriate to discuss Carrie Prejean's breasts on his MSNBC show.

I pulled a paragraph from her article:

But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don't show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”

The author of the article is Kirsten Powers. You can look the whole thing up if you are interested.

I wonder if these men say these things about their wives and daughters. I also wonder why there is so much difference in the reaction of those who hear it. When is it ever okay to debase women just because they are female?

My second annoyance will have to wait until my next post. This is enough for one day.

only acceptable tolerance

I have posted before about how the side that constantly preaches that we should all be more tolerant (the left) is, in fact, extremely intolerant of differing viewpoints. Their version of tolerance is only acceptable as long as everyone agrees with their opinions.

This became very obvious when the "leadership" started discussing instituting the "fair doctrine" rules. What bothered them is that liberal talk shows mostly failed, while conservative talk shows flourished.

Then there was the case of the commentator (Juan Williams) who was on both NPR (public funding involved) and Fox. He stated an opinion on a Fox show and was fired from NPR. He has given opinions on his NPR show that some executives at Fox Network likely didn't agree with, but, unlike the liberal left, Fox must have felt he actually had a right to say what he thought. Imagine that.

I am only familiar with the Mallard Fillmore comic strip. I don't think I have ever seen or heard its author, but apparently he too ran afowl (pun intended) of a left-leaning boss. I sincerely hope he can continue the strip. After all, Doonesbury has been running for years, but I guess it's okay since it leans in the correct direction.

What can I say?

Elections are important!

I think the upcoming election is vitally important. I doubt that our founding fathers ever envisioned career politicians. The author of a novel I read explained it so well and I thought I had marked and saved the place. Unfortunately, I'm not very proficient with my newest Kindle yet. As I remember, his premise was that the country's ideal leaders were statesmen, temporary volunteers doing their duty as needed by the public--and only as needed.

I have also noticed lately the truth of this comic. Many of the liberal candidates are avoiding that title, as well as the credit for the extremely unpopular bills they have helped pass. What is truly frightening is that so many will say whatever they need to in order to get elected, then disregard their campaign promises. I guess if the President can get away with it.....

9-11

Charles Krauthammer:

Church and State

An odd connection just came to me. The Constitution of the United States states that the government should stay out of religion: the separation of church and state. It actually was written to keep government from forcing its citizens into any certain belief--one of the reasons the pilgrims left their homes to come here.

The intent of this amendment has been warped by government--mostly liberal and the ACLU--to oppose any and all religion. We have heard about the lawsuits to prevent nativity scenes on public property, the Ten Commandments posted in government buildings, and even the term, Merry Christmas. Locally, a district court just ruled on a lawsuit brought by a group of atheists from Texas. Apparently, the white crosses along side Utah roads showing where Highway Patrol troopers died, show a preference for Christianity. It is ludicrous enough to be almost funny. What other kind of a monument would signify that someone had died? Some atheist speeding along the highway would be worried that he wouldn't be treated fairly because troopers' families paid for memorial reminders?

Then, there is the media brouhaha about the building of a mosque close to ground zero. Much of the liberal left have been calling for tolerance, fairness, religious freedom. Don't they get the hypocrisy? Where are the atheists now? What if a place built for the religion that led to the deaths on 9-11 offends the people who pass it? Not the same thing? Why not? Does it depend on who is offended?

Finally, Islam has NO separation of church and state. It seems strange that the same leaders who make such a huge deal out of ours, don't seem to be concerned about that.

Not so funny funnies.

Isn't it interesting how the perspective from the highest levels of government (with help from most of the media) seems so skewed? This comic writer feels it just as I do....but he is much more artistically talented.
All you have to do is listen to Nancy Pelosi from time to time. I've heard her say we needed to pass the "health care bill" in order to know what it said. Obviously, she knows best; who are we to question?

Media Bias, oh yeah.

It is illuminating to pay attention to the differences in the way the general, mainstream media treats President Obama compared to its treatment of President Bush. Every time President Bush made a verbal slip (like everyone does) the major newspapers and television networks made fun, derided, and generally fileted him. Not so President Obama.

The differences, naturally, apply to the rest of us. Those who seem to be in agreement with this administration and supportive of its fiscal policies--or lack thereof--are off limits for taunting or deprecation. On the other hand, those who raise questions, voice concerns or displeasure, or seem to lack the appropriate awe at the liberals' greatness have targets on their foreheads.

One more for today. See if you don't find the truth in this too.

Dose of Reality from Sonja Schmidt

We're just too darn dumb to understand.

I find it truly frightening that people who are in positions of "public service" actually don't care much about serving constituents. This last year has been astonishing because of the persistence of the few to force debt, restrictions, and control onto people they are purporting to represent.

It is all because they are so much better and smarter than the rest of us.

Charles Krauthaammer puts it:

Everyone except the elite, all-knowing, ever-wise liberal leaders is dim and emotionally immature, and those leaders just don't understand why we're not thrilled about their enlightened view of how our lives can be. Guess what, we want some control over our lives, our choices, and--heaven forbid--the money we rightfully earn.

Can't stand other opinions?

Is it just me, or do the very liberal believe that no one has the right to a differing opinion? Am I looking at it from a skewed position in thinking that while conservative people have fundamental beliefs, they accept the fact that not everyone agrees, but very liberal people have no such thinking?

I am beginning to think that being a lefty means believing that anyone who doesn't sing along with your exact tune, is just stupid. Liberal thinkers seem convinced that they have all the correct answers (they are the only ones who even know the questions), so all others are just irrelevant nincompoops.

Read some of the posters on newspapers' online message boards. See which people try to get their point across with facts and which are content to demean and insult. Listen to people when they speak. Which use historical data to support ideas, and which use the "we know what's best for you because you don't understand"?

Oh, I understand.