While America Blathered

[Tigermike 3,037]

While America Blathered

Gotta get away

from this day-to-day

running around,

Everybody knows

this is nowhere.

Let's review. Two American task forces and one Marine Expeditionary unit in the Persian Gulf conducting "war-games." 15 UK sailors and marines captured by Tehran and now pawns in what looks to become a long-running series of daily humiliations of a clearly de-fanged and neutered Britain reduced to the "Pretty please?" stage of diplomacy. Russian intelligence reports of a "build-up" of American forces on the borders of Iraq and Iran. A secretary of state at large in the Mid East enacting a sequel to "Strictly Ballroom" in Palestine.

And that beat goes on.

At home, a self-gelded opposition party is forced to sneak through a bill that prohibits Muslim provocateurs from suing ordinary Americans who, on instructions from their government to report suspicious activities at airports, do so. While this is going on, partisan hate in DC and on the Internet is reaching such toxic levels that -- in DC --hazmat suits are about to be issued to sitting congressperns, Senators, staff, and the lockstep marching media morons.

On the Internet even techbloggers are getting death threats. And are actually surprised. "Who, us?" When I pointed out in a forum that political bloggers such as Michelle Malkin have been living with this Web reality for years, the first response was, "Well, Malkin deserves it, but not us."

In Washington, somebody is unfortunate enough to have cancer return to his liver and people split on their reactions to this depending on their party affiliations: "We will pray for him and his family." vs. "God always gets you when you're working for evil.... And by the way, that war in Iraq that's on full-boil in the Mid East, we've really got to do something cowardly about that in -- oh -- about a year or so."

Cross fade to the daily distraction and heavy breathing all around on what potential president in about two years is picking up what "key" endorsements right now. Steve Forbes steps up for Rudy -- don't forget about the dead on arrival flat tax! Billie Jean King for Hillary -- break out the whoopee cushions for breakthrough feminists from the 1970s!

Oh yes, oil's up for seven days in a row because the folks who look at oil futures and present realities don't mess about with the politics of the possible or the politics of perfection. They're into zero-sum and multiplying money. Good thing we're moving out of winter, but get your bicycles oiled and your shoes re-soled for spring and summer. If crude futures spiral up into winter you're going to be praying Global Warming is true.

And the blather goes on. Because, well, it is all we have left in the trepanned national brainpan. Yammering yahoo voices assail us -- the UN says this, Iran says that, your drool-cupped moron is up in the polls and my feckless idiot is down. Anna Nicole killed herself because, well, she just had no understanding of drugs. Do tell? Tell us more.

All this repetitive tripe is trotted out as if this nation has any control of the future left to it. It doesn't. Our enemies control our future, because we simply will not. Our new national anthem is "If only you believe in miracles, baby / So would I," because if Grace Slick can sing it anybody can.

Simply sampling a soupcon of a day's worth of the clotted blather coming from the left, the right, the center, or the stupid -- now all firmly ensconced in the Congress and the White House -- proves only by the endless rounds of "gotcha," that not only does the nation no longer have any control over itself, many of its citizens have no control over themselves as well.

Well, what of it? Why should we have any control over ourselves when so little is asked of us, and we ask even less than that from ourselves?

3000 incinerated in your leading city? Go to the mall and select the latest electronic gizmodo.

Don't have enough cash to manage your jumbo mortgage and credit card debt? Take another shot at the latest Lotto with a dollar and a dream.

Don't like your mate? Dump it and get another.

Don't like your kid? Drug it.

Don't like your President? Impeach him.

Don't like your army? Burn them in effigy.

Don't like your flag? Take a dump on it.

Don't like your chest? Implant it.

Don't like your ass? Liposuction it.

Don't like how the sun shines on your head? Tanning bed.

Don't like this thought? Change channels.

Don't like your body? Pierce it.

Don't like your sex? Bend, fold, staple and mutilate it.

Don't like what you hear? Hit the mute button.

Don't like what you see? Fast-forward to the Festival.

Don't like your house made of wood? Plant a tree today, or pay someone else to do so.

Don't like your carbon footprint? Buy bigger shoes and bigger offsets.

Don't like being accused? Cop a plea.

Don't like God? Kill Him.

Don't like these questions? Take the Fifth.

Be sure to tell yourself that whatever has happened to you, it is not your fault. Be a post-post-modern American. Be an eternal victim. You've got it coming.

When the going gets tough, blame your genes and demand that all share your pain, send you a check, and pay extra for medical research to cure what ails you. For free. It's you're right written right there in the invisible ink between the lines of the Constitution.

When the going gets really tough, blame George Bush, the center of all the evil that is America. Besides, the people that really want to kill you are far too numerous and far too dedicated to your death to contemplate. It is much lighter on the breaking brain to believe that George Bush wants to kill your right to dissent even if it is much harder to see. Your real enemies are far too frightening to contemplate. Your secret hope is that they'll burn you in an instant in some thermonuclear fire so you don't have to be around to put everything back together.

Don't think for a minute that you are unraveling what is left of your social fabric. Who needs clothes in the dark? You are only taking advantage of your First Amendment rights. What was the Second one? Oh, that's the bad one. Then there's 5. And the others? Who remembers? Who can count that high these days?

Once upon a time there was a telling fable about an ant and a grasshopper:

In a field one summer's day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart's content. An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest.

"Why not come and chat with me," said the Grasshopper, "instead of toiling and moiling in that way?"

"I am helping to lay up food for the winter," said the Ant, "and recommend you to do the same."

So goes that tale no longer told. And of course, the chirping grasshopper goes blathering along his merry way with his iPod set on shuffle. But the winter does come, by and by, as it always must.

If it were only a few grasshoppers blathering about the country right now, the ants among us could rest easy. But, alas, it has now gone far beyond that and we have delivered unto ourselves the government and media we deserve: a plague of locusts.

It's a good thing our very post-post-modern Americans have made sure to kill God. If they hadn't they'd recognize the locusts as the eighth plague with two more on the way: darkness and the death of the firstborn.

link

[AURaptor 1,125]

I'm reading your post, and flipping around between Final Four games. Fox News Channel's Geraldo is talking about ---- Anna Nicole Smith's death.

[Tiger Al 0]

I'm reading your post, and flipping around between Final Four games. Fox News Channel's Geraldo is talking about ---- Anna Nicole Smith's death.

That's why Fox News viewers were found to have the most misperceptions in a 2004 study.

[AURaptor 1,125]

I'm reading your post, and flipping around between Final Four games. Fox News Channel's Geraldo is talking about ---- Anna Nicole Smith's death.

That's why Fox News viewers were found to have the most misperceptions in a 2004 study.

I fail to see what one has to do w/ another. The info on ANS is fairly indepth and, for what it's worth, on topic. There's no 'misconception' here, just a decission by the network to titilate instead of inform.

Again, why I don't watch FOX NEWS.

[Tiger Al 0]

...just a decission by the network to titilate instead of inform.

That's what one has to do with the other.

[AURaptor 1,125]

...just a decission by the network to titilate instead of inform.

That's what one has to do with the other.

Nope, sorry. Not seeing your point.

[Tiger Al 0]

...just a decission by the network to titilate instead of inform.

That's what one has to do with the other.

Nope, sorry. Not seeing your point.

That's OK. I really didn't think you could.

[AURaptor 1,125]

...just a decission by the network to titilate instead of inform.

That's what one has to do with the other.

Nope, sorry. Not seeing your point.

That's OK. I really didn't think you could.

You trying to compare apples to oranges is friggin hilarious.

[Tiger Al 0]

...just a decission by the network to titilate instead of inform.

That's what one has to do with the other.

Nope, sorry. Not seeing your point.

That's OK. I really didn't think you could.

You trying to compare apples to oranges is friggin hilarious.

Happy birthday. Now, go watch FoxNews and learn all you can about Anna Nicole. When you're ready for "fair and balanced" tune in to NPR, C-Span and PBS.

[MDM4AU 332]

...just a decission by the network to titilate instead of inform.

That's what one has to do with the other.

Nope, sorry. Not seeing your point.

That's OK. I really didn't think you could.

You trying to compare apples to oranges is friggin hilarious.

Happy birthday. Now, go watch FoxNews and learn all you can about Anna Nicole. When you're ready for "fair and balanced" tune in to NPR, C-Span and PBS.

I'll give you C-Span and PBS, but NPR? Are you serious?

[AURaptor 1,125]

NPR is a kindler, gentler form of Pravda.

[TexasTiger 12,950]

...just a decission by the network to titilate instead of inform.

That's what one has to do with the other.

Nope, sorry. Not seeing your point.

That's OK. I really didn't think you could.

You trying to compare apples to oranges is friggin hilarious.

Happy birthday. Now, go watch FoxNews and learn all you can about Anna Nicole. When you're ready for "fair and balanced" tune in to NPR, C-Span and PBS.

I'll give you C-Span and PBS, but NPR? Are you serious?

NPR routinely has Republicans interviewed and they give them plenty of time to talk, don't cut them off, etc. Republicans routinely go on NPR b/c they know they will be treated fairly.

[Tiger Al 0]

...just a decission by the network to titilate instead of inform.

That's what one has to do with the other.

Nope, sorry. Not seeing your point.

That's OK. I really didn't think you could.

You trying to compare apples to oranges is friggin hilarious.

Happy birthday. Now, go watch FoxNews and learn all you can about Anna Nicole. When you're ready for "fair and balanced" tune in to NPR, C-Span and PBS.

I'll give you C-Span and PBS, but NPR? Are you serious?

You obviously don't listen to NPR because, if you did, you'd know that many perspectives of a given issue are presented. Fox, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Boortz, Malkin, O'Reilly, etc. are only variations of the same perspective. And, none of them are even news sources, they're opinion sources.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

You obviously don't listen to NPR because, if you did, you'd know that many perspectives of a given issue are presented. Fox, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Boortz, Malkin, O'Reilly, etc. are only variations of the same perspective. And, none of them are even news sources, they're opinion sources.

We are force fed 4+ hours of NPR each day on our Armed Forces Radio braodcasts, and there is no way in hell you can say they are fair and balanced. Their stories are overwhelmingly anti-conservative and anti-Israel.

NPR is another shining example of government waste. We, the taxpayers, should not be funding this dribble with our tax dollars. Throw them out in the world of competition and see how long they last. My money says they would fold quicker than Air America did.

NPR Sets Dial on Broadcasting Bias; NPR's track record of slamming Israel while muzzling criticism of militant Islam has led to renewed calls for Congress to eliminate the network's taxpayer funding - The Nation

Students at the University of Kentucky were treated in early April to a fervent antiwar and anti-Bush diatribe by a national left-leaning celebrity. In an accusatory tone, the speaker claimed President George W. Bush had "offered an attractive bribe to Turkey in exchange for permission to use Turkey as a base from which to invade Northern Iraq" and charged that he had "told the rest of the world that the United States is ready to act alone in virtually every field." The celebrity railed against the press for allegedly not being as tough on Bush as it was on former president Bill Clinton, declaring: "The press didn't wait until the intern scandal to ask tough questions of Bill Clinton, so why is the incumbent getting a pass?"

The long, rambling speech, which was reprinted in the Louisville Courier-Journal and by the Media Research Center, also bashed radio stations for playing patriotic music as the United States went to war and even for playing the national anthem. Of particular concern to the speaker was the Website of Washington's all-news radio station WTOP, which linked to armed-forces Websites and forwarded e-mails to troops. "Balancing all that were links to two peace groups," the speaker complained. The speaker then announced that public annoyance with the antimilitary pronunciamentos of celebrities such as the Dixie Chicks was symptomatic of a new McCarthyism. "Witch burning is an ugly chapter in our history," he said. "It should not be revived, even if it's good for business."

Who was this celebrity? One of the febrile Hollywood left? Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen? No, the author of this rant was none other than newscaster Bob Edwards, host of Morning Edition on the "objective" National Public Radio (NPR). The speech came after he was inducted into the Kentucky Journalism Hall of Fame. And Edwards even used the platform to take a dig at his competitor, Clear Channel Communications Inc. He claimed that the Dixie Chicks' sagging album sales after the group's lead singer, Natalie Maines, said on foreign soil that she was "ashamed" of President Bush were not the result of listener disgust, but due to a conspiracy by San Antonio, Texas-based Clear Channel. "Clear Channel loves George W. Bush," Edwards said. He offered no evidence for the alleged conspiracy, and Clear Channel repeatedly has denied requesting, directing or ordering its radio stations not to play the Dixie Chicks.

Responding to the NPR anchor's diatribe, Chris Chandler, a news anchor for Louisville's WHAS-AM, which is owned by Clear Channel, wrote in a letter to the media Website Poynter.org: "Apparently, this brand of liberal reactionism is tolerated or even expected at NPR. ... If Edwards can deliver a speech like that and still expect to be taken seriously as an objective observer the next morning, somebody should really give him this message: Those who live in government-subsidized glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones."

Eight years ago, Newt Gingrich and the "revolutionary" Republican Congress wanted to zero out funding for NPR and other government-subsidized "public broadcasting." They cited what they called the liberal bias of NPR and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), and the libertarian principle that one group of taxpayers shouldn't be paying for another group's entertainment. But an angry backlash from NPR listeners, as well as the fading away during the go-go nineties of the fervor to cut spending, meant that NPR's funding not only was secure but soon was increased. Public broadcasting now receives about $400 million annually from federal revenues.

But now NPR again is being accused of blatant bias, and this time not all the grumbling comes from conservatives. The critics accuse the network of peddling gross distortions and falsehoods about Israel and muzzling criticism of militant Islam. NPR appears, for instance, to have blacklisted Steven Emerson, a prominent critic of militant Islam who has testified as an expert witness before Congress. After Emerson was interviewed briefly in August 1998 on NPR's Talk of the Nation, the network received angry e-mails from activists spurred on by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), whose leaders have expressed support for the terrorist group Hamas. Producer Ellen Silva e-mailed one of the activists with this message: "You have my promise that he won't be used again. It is NPR policy."

When the e-mail came to light two weeks later in a column by the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby, NPR official Jeffrey Dvorkin (now the network's ombudsman) denied that any such ban existed. "There never was and never will be a policy of banning or blacklisting at NPR," Dvorkin wrote. "Mr. Emerson is not 'banned,' and in fact we anticipate that he will be on NPR again at an appropriate time." But the "appropriate time" did not arise for nearly four years not until March 2002, a full six months after the Sept. 11 attacks even though Emerson had in the meantime been on every major TV network and had been made a contributor to MSNBC shortly after the attack occurred.

Link

[MDM4AU 332]

...just a decission by the network to titilate instead of inform.

That's what one has to do with the other.

Nope, sorry. Not seeing your point.

That's OK. I really didn't think you could.

You trying to compare apples to oranges is friggin hilarious.

Happy birthday. Now, go watch FoxNews and learn all you can about Anna Nicole. When you're ready for "fair and balanced" tune in to NPR, C-Span and PBS.

I'll give you C-Span and PBS, but NPR? Are you serious?

You obviously don't listen to NPR because, if you did, you'd know that many perspectives of a given issue are presented. Fox, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Boortz, Malkin, O'Reilly, etc. are only variations of the same perspective. And, none of them are even news sources, they're opinion sources.

Actually I have tried to here in Birmingham, but after about 30 minutes of the left-leaning slant of the regulars I have to put on a CD, tun on XM or something. You may be right...their "Features" are balanced but their news is slanted.

The only conservative you list that I listen to is Beck. And if you knew anything about Beck that Media Matters or Koz and the like hadn't spoon fed you, you would know he states outright that his is OPINION and that he is a CONSERVATIVE. He doesn't claim to be the NEWS. Sure, he is on Headline Prime on CNN but he says the same thing there. CNN is the one to put his show on that channel. And for everyone of those righties you listed, there is a lefty giving the leftist opinion on Air America or in the NYT or LAT.

BTW, I get my news from the local rag, WSJ, USA Today, and Google News. I also catch CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News sometimes on XM just to hear what each is saying about a certain story. But that is limited.

[TexasTiger 12,950]

You obviously don't listen to NPR because, if you did, you'd know that many perspectives of a given issue are presented. Fox, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Boortz, Malkin, O'Reilly, etc. are only variations of the same perspective. And, none of them are even news sources, they're opinion sources.

We are force fed 4+ hours of NPR each day on our Armed Forces Radio braodcasts, and there is no way in hell you can say they are fair and balanced. Their stories are overwhelmingly anti-conservative and anti-Israel.

NPR is another shining example of government waste. We, the taxpayers, should not be funding this dribble with our tax dollars. Throw them out in the world of competition and see how long they last. My money says they would fold quicker than Air America did.

NPR Sets Dial on Broadcasting Bias; NPR's track record of slamming Israel while muzzling criticism of militant Islam has led to renewed calls for Congress to eliminate the network's taxpayer funding - The Nation

Students at the University of Kentucky were treated in early April to a fervent antiwar and anti-Bush diatribe by a national left-leaning celebrity. In an accusatory tone, the speaker claimed President George W. Bush had "offered an attractive bribe to Turkey in exchange for permission to use Turkey as a base from which to invade Northern Iraq" and charged that he had "told the rest of the world that the United States is ready to act alone in virtually every field." The celebrity railed against the press for allegedly not being as tough on Bush as it was on former president Bill Clinton, declaring: "The press didn't wait until the intern scandal to ask tough questions of Bill Clinton, so why is the incumbent getting a pass?"

The long, rambling speech, which was reprinted in the Louisville Courier-Journal and by the Media Research Center, also bashed radio stations for playing patriotic music as the United States went to war and even for playing the national anthem. Of particular concern to the speaker was the Website of Washington's all-news radio station WTOP, which linked to armed-forces Websites and forwarded e-mails to troops. "Balancing all that were links to two peace groups," the speaker complained. The speaker then announced that public annoyance with the antimilitary pronunciamentos of celebrities such as the Dixie Chicks was symptomatic of a new McCarthyism. "Witch burning is an ugly chapter in our history," he said. "It should not be revived, even if it's good for business."

Who was this celebrity? One of the febrile Hollywood left? Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen? No, the author of this rant was none other than newscaster Bob Edwards, host of Morning Edition on the "objective" National Public Radio (NPR). The speech came after he was inducted into the Kentucky Journalism Hall of Fame. And Edwards even used the platform to take a dig at his competitor, Clear Channel Communications Inc. He claimed that the Dixie Chicks' sagging album sales after the group's lead singer, Natalie Maines, said on foreign soil that she was "ashamed" of President Bush were not the result of listener disgust, but due to a conspiracy by San Antonio, Texas-based Clear Channel. "Clear Channel loves George W. Bush," Edwards said. He offered no evidence for the alleged conspiracy, and Clear Channel repeatedly has denied requesting, directing or ordering its radio stations not to play the Dixie Chicks.

Responding to the NPR anchor's diatribe, Chris Chandler, a news anchor for Louisville's WHAS-AM, which is owned by Clear Channel, wrote in a letter to the media Website Poynter.org: "Apparently, this brand of liberal reactionism is tolerated or even expected at NPR. ... If Edwards can deliver a speech like that and still expect to be taken seriously as an objective observer the next morning, somebody should really give him this message: Those who live in government-subsidized glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones."

Eight years ago, Newt Gingrich and the "revolutionary" Republican Congress wanted to zero out funding for NPR and other government-subsidized "public broadcasting." They cited what they called the liberal bias of NPR and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), and the libertarian principle that one group of taxpayers shouldn't be paying for another group's entertainment. But an angry backlash from NPR listeners, as well as the fading away during the go-go nineties of the fervor to cut spending, meant that NPR's funding not only was secure but soon was increased. Public broadcasting now receives about $400 million annually from federal revenues.

But now NPR again is being accused of blatant bias, and this time not all the grumbling comes from conservatives. The critics accuse the network of peddling gross distortions and falsehoods about Israel and muzzling criticism of militant Islam. NPR appears, for instance, to have blacklisted Steven Emerson, a prominent critic of militant Islam who has testified as an expert witness before Congress. After Emerson was interviewed briefly in August 1998 on NPR's Talk of the Nation, the network received angry e-mails from activists spurred on by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), whose leaders have expressed support for the terrorist group Hamas. Producer Ellen Silva e-mailed one of the activists with this message: "You have my promise that he won't be used again. It is NPR policy."

When the e-mail came to light two weeks later in a column by the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby, NPR official Jeffrey Dvorkin (now the network's ombudsman) denied that any such ban existed. "There never was and never will be a policy of banning or blacklisting at NPR," Dvorkin wrote. "Mr. Emerson is not 'banned,' and in fact we anticipate that he will be on NPR again at an appropriate time." But the "appropriate time" did not arise for nearly four years not until March 2002, a full six months after the Sept. 11 attacks even though Emerson had in the meantime been on every major TV network and had been made a contributor to MSNBC shortly after the attack occurred.

Link

For you guys, anything not pro-Bush is liberal. By the way, it's telling, and kinda funny, that you cite a Moonie publication that hits NPR for bias. You have no idea who is spoonfeeding you...but you eat it up and ask for more!!!

Insight, like the Washington Times, is owned by a company controlled by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. No one answered the phone at Insight's office yesterday and its editor did not respond to an e-mail request for comment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7012101161.html

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I didn't have to cite anything. I am innundated with NPR daily. I know which way they lean, as does every other sane person in the country. There are centrist outlets available; NPR isn't one of them.

I cited this article as evidence of NPR's far left slant. Your buddy is the one that can't admit it.

[TexasTiger 12,950]

I didn't have to cite anything. I am innundated with NPR daily. I know which way they lean, as does every other sane person in the country. There are centrist outlets available; NPR isn't one of them.

I cited this article as evidence of NPR's far left slant. Your buddy is the one that can't admit it.

The article you cited as "evidence" is from a source owned by Rev. Moon. If you are an adherent to the Unification Church it was not my intention to offend you. If you are not, it seems you would want to know on whom you are relying for your beliefs.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Who gives a flying crap on whose site it was posted? Argue the merits of the article. You can't because it proves me right (as usual), therefore you have to attack the source.

[TexasTiger 12,950]

Who gives a flying crap on whose site it was posted? Argue the merits of the article. You can't because it proves me right (as usual), therefore you have to attack the source.

Well, your article is from 2003 and Bob Edwards was removed from Morning Edition in 2004. Got anything more recent?

This article basically proves my point, though. The comments cited in his speech were basically criticisms of the media-- his profession. Again, any "news" organization that isn't pro-Bush is dismissed as biased by you.

"Clear Channel loves George W. Bush," Edwards said.

Please. :

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...annel_Worldwide

http://www.citypages.com/databank/26/1263/article12961.asp

the speaker claimed President George W. Bush had "offered an attractive bribe to Turkey in exchange for permission to use Turkey as a base from which to invade Northern Iraq" and charged that he had "told the rest of the world that the United States is ready to act alone in virtually every field."

As incentive, U.S. officials say they've offered Turkey economic aid totaling $6 billion in grants, and up to $20 billion in loan guarantees. The Bush administration has pressed hard over the past three months. In December, Deputy Defense Sec. Paul Wolfowitz met with government officials in Ankara. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers took the case to Turkish military officials in January.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/jan-...urkey_2-21.html

we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssall.html

It's really sad that you are so threatened by facts.

[DKW 86 7,428]

Sorry gentlemen. First, the bias on NPR is actually on NPR News and All Things Considered. The general stories are fine to me. The NPR News and ATC is decidedly anti-Israel all the time. Israel is blamed over and over for everything wrong in the Middle East. Please dont ask for links, The first google I did before posting returned over a million articles alone. I just could not begin to waste the time to search through all the crap. Many Many Many people have whole websites dedicated to NPR News bias. Nina Totenberg and her lackies were the real bias at NPR News and they have been removed from the jobs doing all the damage to NPR.