So, recent events got me thinking again. The movie "Good Night and Good Luck" lionizes (some say hagiographs) Edward R. Murrow. At the same time, the Valerie Plame/Judith Miller/Republican scumbags case kept its revelations going. Now, one of the problems with the debate on Plame and Judith Miller, the reporter who supposedly was leaked her name by Scooter Libby, is that no one wants to come out and say that she is just another Report-whore of the modern style, not a freedom fighter for the First Amendment (though, I suppose, the Fifth Amendment may come into play for her at some time soon …)
Yes, there has been a steady downslide in the image of reporters in the past few years. Of course there have always been the celebrity Report-whores, selling stories about the stars for money. We have seen the spectacle of formerly 'hard' journalists like Diane Sawyer and Barbara Walters now paving their way on morning pseudo-news chat shows sitting on a couch talking about celebrity boob jobs. Report-whoring was made easier by the Fox network, who have funded an entire stable of Report-whores whose idea of hard news reporting is rephrasing White House press releases. But now, we are faced with the idea of a semi-permanent set of Report-whores whose accept their role is to push government propaganda with the same zeal as have celebrity reporters pimping new studio releases.
Liberals must be especially aghast at Miller. But, why are we now surprised? Partially because Miller works for the liberal bastion "The New York Times". A traitor in our midst? No, more like the token conservative at that paper, or at least so we thought. But is she the only sellout? Far from it. Just as we ask that question we get the spectacle of Mr. Bob Woodward, supposed Hero of the '72 Revolution. Woodward now admits he had contact with the Bush administration but failed to mention it as he 'didn't want to get involved' in the Plame case. Hard hitting? Only as he hit the bottom of his foxhole diving for cover. Surprised? A documentary of Watergate, Silent Coup, points out that Woodward was always a mole for the military intelligence community, being a briefer for naval intelligence. Since Watergate he has been a liberal paper tiger, mostly pimping his credentials writing supposedly hard hitting books with all the punch of a feather boa. But now, he whored out to the Rove-Cheney machine. How could we have been so naïve?
Back to "Good Night", though. Sadly, it points up to me that Murrow, Cronkite, Huntley, Brinkley and the like that I grew up with were all the exception, not the rule. The rule of American media history has been the corporate press, from the Federalist press machine of the 1780s, the Republican press of the Civil War to the Hearst tabloids.
What changed our perceptions was the Second World War. But, that was obviously more the exception than the rule. As the Greatest Generation ™ dies off, the next generations will find that the real problem is evermore rampant corporatism. And the only time in recent memory that corporations were at all brought to heel was when they were all but nationalized to fight WW2. Since then we have had increasing corporate sponsorship of war until the present day when the military-industrial complex of Eisenhower's warning pales by comparison to Bush's creation of a war not only sponsored by but outsourced to industry. The Report-whores who mildly complained at being somewhat shut out of the first gulf war were this time herded completely by the Rove-Cheney machine. All they wanted was the promise that they could be the next Wolf Blitzer, filming with the bombs falling around them. Be careful what you ask for, Report-whores. This time, the bombs are roadside and they don't make nice TV when they blow up your humvee.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Loveland = Dumbland?
So, the Guyster had the opportunity to see the latest (although not new) email screed circulating around his rather conservatively-oriented office. Interestingly, this email also was the downfall of Jim Welker, R-Loveland, which may argue its currency if not its accuracy.
In the interest of not advancing this silliness I will not reproduce the article, but there simply look up "Can Muslims Be Good Americans?" on your favorite search engine.
However, in the interest of being an equal opportunity offender, the Guyster has uncovered the following text:
CAN A CHRISTIAN BE A GOOD AMERICAN?
By Guy Weknow
Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to Jehovah, the god of the Canaanites and to his prophet, Jesus.
Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to the literal word of the Bible and the Ten Commandments.
Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to Rome, Jerusalem, Constantinople or other seats of the holy church.
Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Christianity forbids him to make friends with gays, liberals or Jews. "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (Matthew 23:33)
Politically, no. Because he must submit to the ministers (spiritual leaders), who teach the subjugation of women, minorities, homosexuals and all those sinners tolerated by the Constitution of the United States. "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3) "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
Domestically, no. Because he is instructed to "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. " (I Timothy 2:11-14)
Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by his god except Judaism: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Intellectually, no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution as it is based on a separation of church and state and an acceptance of other faiths.
Philosophically, no. Because he is instructed to kill anyone who asks him to moderate his faith: "And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God... If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers. Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." (Deuteronomy 13:8-9)
Democracy and Christ cannot coexist. Every Puritan government is either dictatorial or autocratic: "England then had, in effect, a theocratic Puritan dictatorship. This was a dictatorship by a Christian fundamentalist, if you will. Cromwell ruled as Lord Protector until his death 5 years later." (http://endtimepilgrim.org/puritans.htm)
Spiritually, no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," Christ does not wish believers and nonbelievers to live together as one nation: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:34-37). "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
In the interest of not advancing this silliness I will not reproduce the article, but there simply look up "Can Muslims Be Good Americans?" on your favorite search engine.
However, in the interest of being an equal opportunity offender, the Guyster has uncovered the following text:
CAN A CHRISTIAN BE A GOOD AMERICAN?
By Guy Weknow
Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to Jehovah, the god of the Canaanites and to his prophet, Jesus.
Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to the literal word of the Bible and the Ten Commandments.
Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to Rome, Jerusalem, Constantinople or other seats of the holy church.
Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Christianity forbids him to make friends with gays, liberals or Jews. "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (Matthew 23:33)
Politically, no. Because he must submit to the ministers (spiritual leaders), who teach the subjugation of women, minorities, homosexuals and all those sinners tolerated by the Constitution of the United States. "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3) "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
Domestically, no. Because he is instructed to "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. " (I Timothy 2:11-14)
Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by his god except Judaism: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Intellectually, no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution as it is based on a separation of church and state and an acceptance of other faiths.
Philosophically, no. Because he is instructed to kill anyone who asks him to moderate his faith: "And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God... If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers. Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." (Deuteronomy 13:8-9)
Democracy and Christ cannot coexist. Every Puritan government is either dictatorial or autocratic: "England then had, in effect, a theocratic Puritan dictatorship. This was a dictatorship by a Christian fundamentalist, if you will. Cromwell ruled as Lord Protector until his death 5 years later." (http://endtimepilgrim.org/puritans.htm)
Spiritually, no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," Christ does not wish believers and nonbelievers to live together as one nation: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:34-37). "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)