Media in Trouble: All the news thats UNfit to print!: War on Rhetoric?

"The information of the people at large can alone make them safe, as they are the sole depositary of our political and religious freedom." --Thomas Jefferson 1810

Sunday, March 06, 2005

War on Rhetoric?

Noticed on Face the Nation that whilst Chuck Hagel was on spewing his Privatization scheme, Bob and Carin used the words "Personal Accounts" to describe the Private Accounts the President wants. After lying about an actuarial interpretation of an outlook that depends on the absolute failure (read slow 1.8% growth of the economy) of the economic policies he helped enact (read tax cuts during war time) that got us to the so called "actuarial fact" that Social Security is already in debt by 3.7 trillion; on came Senator Barbara Boxer.

When they talked to her, they used the terms "Private accounts" to more accurately describe the accounts, however, they were associating those terms with a Democrat.

I don't know why you would use the proper term to describe the policy to a person who already refers to such a policy using such term. If anything you would, as a card carrying member of the fourth estate, want to point that little rhetorical trick out to the person who is actually using said wordtrick to push such proposal.

But I am probably reaching. Who am I to make a case for the media being a part of an unconstitutional way of using tax dollars via, a non-partisan government agency, to promote a plan that is utterly and completely partisan?


I mean the diference between a murder weapon and the media is that a murder weapon can't choose itself as the vehicle of malfeasance, whereas an entity such as the media which is controlled by people (who no doubt know the laws governing their industry) can.

While I am on the subject of rhetoric. Welcome to the land of Bush Appologists. Daniel Schorr of PBS, Joe Klein of Time Magazine, and any other Democrat who comes out and says this latest wave of protest and democratic activity could have possibly been a result of Bush saying nice things to or going to war with the middle east.

How can any muslim take Bush seriously when they know he is the man responsible for the killing of over 100,000 fellow muslims? For reasons that have been proven to be manufactured, distortions, and fabricated interpretations of intelligence?

Certainly no muslim would take the words of such a president seriously if he is speaking to them not along side of them (for he fears them) as his emulatee did with Berliners. Nay he spoke those words in front of Rich White People who just so happen to be implementing laws that keep their people from worshiping their own semi-innocent way. Exempli gratis, insisting on wearing a birka is not the same as insisting on wearing a fuck you t-shirt.

Perhaps the same people who are responsible for contributing to the story of history would benefit to read into the History they helped write over the past 30 years or so, and realize that much of what is happening in Lebanon and Palestine is either a matter of circumstance (the latter) or the fights, deaths, and suffering of many pro-democratic forces who have been fighting for this means are actually responsible.

So again, any liberal or democrat who doesn't say the truth when it comes to the middle east is nothing but a Bush appologist and I think we have enough of those already.

Bonus: Bob Novak apologized for the erroneous quote about Gov. Dean, he also got his ass handed to him on Capital Gang when he stood out in favor of Justice Scalia and capital punishment of children. Novak also pulled the race card against democrats at least 3 times on this weeks Capital Gang.

Bonus 2:
SEN. McCONNELL: If Pat Moynihan were still alive, he'd be here to speak for himself. But here's what he said about the use of the word "privatization," which you notice my good friend Dick Durbin keeps putting in. Senator Daniel Moynihan said about privatization, "That's a scare word. That's a scare word. No one is privatizing Social Security. Nothing of that sort is happening."

Now, that's Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the Democratic expert on Social Security. I wish he were still alive to be here and make that statement himself. Why do we have to keep using that word? The reason they want to use that word is they want to politicize this issue. Why don't we just stop that and sit down together now that it's clear from the tour of the last two days, that Dick and Harry Reid and others believe that it's time to start talking? Why don't we just sit down and start talking about the subject and see what we can work out on a bipartisan basis?

Uh, maybe nobody was trying to privatize social security when Moynihan spoke those words but hes dead now and unfortunately, the republicans are obviously trying to privatize social security. And sitting down on a bipartisan basis? First, why don't we let dissenting views into a Bush "town-hall meeting." Them things are harder to get into than a whorehouse on fat Tuesday. Then Senator McConnell, remember that when you are in the minority, you have no control over what bills get to the floor of the Senate.