Raise, Lower Or Adjust The Focus

I see where the New York Times is now equating Jon Stewart with the likes of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite. My initial reaction was, “Oh My Gawd! How could they possibly compare this radically leftist comedian with two of America’s most storied reporters?” This must surely diminish the legacy of these news men. I mean come on, comparing Stewart to these two is like comparing sour cream to butter. You find them in the same section of the grocery (they were both on TV) but are decidedly different products (reporters vs comedians).

My next thought was that this was certainly elevating Jon Stewart WAY above his station. Again, he is a radically leftist comedian, and here is the New York Times elevating him to news icon status. Totally unjustified in my opinion. Again, he’s a COMEDIAN people! Yes, he has opinions and yes he has an audience, but come on now, let’s be serious. Iconic news figure? I don’t think so.

Then it hit me, maybe the NYT was absolutely correct in equating Stewart with Murrow and Cronkite. Maybe they actually hit the nail on the head, just a different nail than they intended.

By equating Stewart, Murrow and Cronkite, the NYT is allowing us to correct the focus downward on Murrow and Cronkite, rather than raising Stewart’s stature. 

By opening this door, the NYT has given us an opportunity to revisit the careers of Murrow and Cronkite. We get to look back and see that they were NOT the objective reporters they are held up to be, but rather, like Stewart, they were left wing advocates. 

I have no personal memories of Mr. Murrow other than vague ones of him on the nightly news when I was a child. I can recall the sound of his voice and the commanding quality it had. I don’t recall anything he said in particular. I do remember people assuming anything he said was fact.

As it turns out, not so much. While Joe McCarthy’s methods were dubious at best, he was correct in his belief that Communists had found their way into the government and Hollywood (much like the socialists of today). Murrow’s leftist positions in bringing McCarthy down may well have prolonged the cold war. 

Cronkite, on the other had, is a clear picture in my mind. So much so that when I saw him in the Airport one day, I felt compelled to do the “guess who I saw” thing with friends of my own age. He clearly stood out as the unimpeachable voice of “the NEWS”. If Walter said it, it must be true. Walter’s pronouncements about the Viet Nam war were taken as gospel. 

As it turns out, Walter was clearly shaping public opinion, not reporting! We know from Viet Nam’s own reports they felt they were losing the war but knew that if they let folks like Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather and Jane Fonda convince Americans they were fighting a lost cause, they would prevail in the end. 

In any objective look at Murrow and Cronkite, one could easily consider them to be aparatchuks for the left. Helping to shift opinion away from a more traditional conservative American posture to that of a more leftist socialist posture. Who was it, Lenin possibly, who said that one of the first things that needed to be done in the revolution was to control the media? Murrow and Cronkite were a couple of the early shock troops in the left’s drive to do just that. While he is a comedian, Jon Stewart is another cog in the wheel working to control public opinion. A very effective cog, but another cog none the less.

So thank you New York Times for giving us this opportunity to correct our view of both Murrow and Cronkite.

OBTW, I would like to thank Jon Stewart for his advocacy for those who gave their lives on 9/11. I believe the bill was a worthwhile bill, although I do have to ask, how do we pay for it? I believe that’s all the Republicans were really doing also. You know it’s kind of like the old saying goes, when you find your self in a hole you don’t want to be in, the first thing you need to do is stop digging. It seems like we are in a financial hole, maybe we ought to STOP SPENDING!!!!

Bumper Stickers

Bumper Stickers. You know them, the clever little signs on the back of cars. The ones where folks espouse political positions in catchy little phrases. I’m not talking about the Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin type of bumper sticker or the one where you support your favorite college or pro team. No, I’m talking about the self righteous political ones.

I see the one where they spell the word PEACE using the various world religious symbols. I just want to go up to these folks and ask them how sales on those are going in islamic countries. 

My personal opinion is, if your political beliefs can be summed up on a bumper sticker, you clearly haven’t given enough thought to your positions. You need to step back and ask yourself, “If my beliefs on X can be correctly stated on a 4” by 12” vinyl strip meant to be read at 40 feet, have I really given this enough serious thought?” Now my guess is that most of these simpletons would respond with one of their patent answers that are equally bumper sticker worthy, and equally simple.

Now understand, I believe this theory holds true whether we are talking about a conservative or a liberal bumper sticker. However, it does appear that the majority  of these bumper stickers are sported by liberals. Maybe it’s because I live in a college town and it is chock full of aging hippies and idealistic young dolts who know all the answers, neither of which have ever had to deal with the real world. (Kind of like the crowd our President has assembled to run our country.) 

But I guess, at the end of the day, I really kind of like having these folks sport these stickers, they are like a book jacket, they give you a pretty good idea of what your are going to find on the inside. And like many books, it tells me not to invest to much time or energy in them because they clearly haven’t fully developed a clear and consistent story line. One that has shown critical thinking and an understanding of the world.

Julian Assange - Hypocritical Assbag

Julian Assange is a hypocritical assbag!

Julian Assange claims he has no political agenda. He is not out to destroy or even damage the US. His only desire is to have the TRUTH be available to everyone. He wants every little embarrassing morsel of information he can find about the US put out there. 

Now maybe he has put out embarrassing info from Russia and/or China, but I sure haven’t heard about it. Nor have I heard of anything about Cuba, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Syria or any of the myriad of other despicable nations out there. They claim their focus is in these areas but I’ve never seen any big splashes concerning any other country. 

No, he chooses to target the US. One of the only nations to ever have willingly shed its citizens blood in order to protect and free another’s. We are not and never really have been an empire builder outside our own borders once the contiguous 48 were in place. Yet Assange has targeted the US for his loving ministrations, while claiming no political agenda. 

It appears clear to me that he DOES have an agenda. He seems to be an Anarchist of the first order. Someone who believes there should be no governments at all. To take a look at how things would operate if anarchists were to get their way, just look at how they behave when ever the G8 get together and they riot, loot and pillage the cities where the meeting is taking place.

You may be saying to your self, “Yes Farmboy, this may all be true but why do you say he is a hypocritical assbag?” 

I say this because for all of his bluster about openness and everyone needs to know everything, when it comes to him......well, not so much.

When he was receiving his bail to get out of jail, he asked the judge to not make his address public in order to protect his privacy! OMG, can it possibly get any more hypocritical than that? Then it was reported yesterday, that while a reporter was asking him about the charges against him, he didn’t like the direction of the questions and walked out on the interview calling the ABC reporter a “tabloid schmuck”.

So if I understand Mr. Assange’s actions correctly, exposing every little wart and pimple about the US equals good. Exposing a few warts and pimples about him equals bad.

Not sure about you, but in my book, that puts Julian Assange right at the top of the Hypocritical Assbag list, qualifying him for a prominent place on Dennis Miller’s shun list.

Freudian Slip

I know I’ve talked about this before, but the First Lady made a Freudian Slip the other day that reinforced what I and others have often said. That Liberals think they are the smartest kids in the room and the rest of us are to dumb to be left alone to make our own decisions. 

The FL, while talking about the nutrition bill she was able to get signed into law, said that our children’s nutrition was “to important to leave it up to the parents.” While the statement it’s self is appalling enough on it’s own, you need to take a step back and look at it again.

At a time like this, the passing of her signature issue bill, the remarks she makes will not be left to off the cuff ad libs. She will have spent a considerable amount of time preparing her thoughts. Not only that, but in the rarified circles she operates in, I feel safe in assuming she has speech writers help her and poor over every word and phrase. A veritable army of people (all liberal) reviewed what she was to say before she said it, and nary a one said “Wait a minute, do realize how this makes us sound?”

Why do you suppose that is?

My hypothesis is that it didn’t set off any alarm bells because from their position, they saw nothing wrong. It was self evident. You can’t let those rubes out there make important decisions. Important decisions should be made by the “smart kids.” If you let people who didn’t go to Harvard or Yale make decisions they just won’t make the “right” ones, and by “right” they mean the decisions “they” would make. 

Counter intuitive as it might seem, Liberals are not for freedom. Liberals are for an autocracy of the left. They are Fascists. 

Fascism, according to “Dictionary.com” is a government system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

So, what part of that definition doesn’t fit our current Liberals’ desires? If you change “Dictator” to “Ruling Elite” the rest rings true until you get to the very end. If you change the concept of nationalism to a one world government, the only part that doesn’t ring true is racism.

Look at what they have tried to do. They want to control business and industry. You see it in the extensive use of Czars for this and that, that don’t answer to anyone but the president. They are trying to force individual citizens to make purchases they may not choose to. They are trying to control the flow of information as they push to shut down radio and by extension the internet if they espouse a view different from them. They are starting with an attack on Rush, but if they can take him down, what do you suppose the chances are that any of us would be able to escape their control?

Thank heavens this past November, the American people have started to wrest control away from these folks. The Tea Party is the antithesis of the Liberal elites. They are all about what this country was founded upon. They are for individual freedom and responsibility. 

My general feeling is if somebody feels they are superior to you, they are anything but! 

Fool Me Once...

I was just writing about my feelings concerning how barbaric the strict islamic societies are and I stopped and deleted it. I just felt like I was being as judgmental and narrow sighted as they were. So I deleted the article. 

But the more I think about it, the more I feel that I am justified in my feelings. At this point I really don’t care if someone says “oh you just don’t understand” or “you shouldn’t judge” or any of the other hogwash we’ve been feed about being “multicultural”. Being multicultural is fine if the other culture is willing to be multicultural towards you. When the other culture is a 5th century barbaric theocracy that advocates stoning as a form of capital punishment, and wants to see your culture eradicated from the face of the earth, I say “f^&k it!”

It doesn’t deserve to be given any considerations. It should be shunned by all civilized people throughout the world. 

Yes I know that all practitioners of the muslim faith are not advocates of the barbaric behaviors demonstrated my millions of their fellow believers. However, until they take an active part in denouncing and subduing these virulent cretins, they should be viewed with a cautious eye. 

I keep hearing how “the majority of muslims are peace loving and tolerant”. Well, as the saying goes, money talks and bullshit walks. It’s time for these moderates to start putting the clamps on their fanatical brethren. Failing to actively turn against such fanatics is tantamount to supporting them. By not turning on them and calling them out, it allows them to have safe havens, from which they are able to attempt their nefarious deeds. That is equal to support.

Until the majority of muslims start shining a bright light into the corners of their religion to run the cockroaches out where they can be exterminated, it only makes sense for everyone else to eye them with suspicion. To wonder, “what do they do when we are not looking?” 

If we knew there was a strain of catholics who wanted to kill all protestants, we would be foolish not to profile catholics and view them carefully. Why should I give a group of people the benefit of the doubt when a significant portion of them would like to see me dead? That seems to be a foolish approach to the situation on my part. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. I’m not prepared to be fooled twice. 

When the majority of muslims actively show they are for peace and tolerance, then I will be happy to change my tune. Until then, for our own preservation, we need to keep a watchful eye.

Aaron Sorkin Is A Weenie!

Aaron Sorkin of "West Wing" fame, is a hypocritical pansy! Today he writes an article in the Huffington Post berating Sarah Palin for the hunting of a moose on her TV show "Sarah Palin's Alaska".

He posits that because he wears leather shoes and eats meat he is qualified to stand in judgement of her. That makes as much sense as a minnow saying he's a fish and thus can judge the actions of the shark!

Sorkin has probably never held a real gun in his hand, much less killed anything above a spider. How can he possibly think he can speak to the motivations of a hunter. He equates hunting to dog fighting and feels there is no difference between the two activities. He goes on to say he is happy every time he hears about a hunting accident and someone is shot. To me, this puts him much more squarely in the dog fighters camp than the hunter could ever be. He is finding pleasure in the pain of another creature.

The hunter does not hunt to inflict pain! The hunter has great respect for his quarry. In a hunters perfect world, he will kill his prey with one clean shot. He will inflict less pain to his prey than Sorkin wishes on all hunters.

Does the hunter "need" to hunt in order to survive? Of course not. He can go to the grocery store and buy meat just like the rest of us can. However, I would argue that a hunter is far less hypocritical than weenies like Sorkin. The hunter is willing to go out and match wits with his prey and do the actual killing and preparing of his meat for the table. People like Sorkin are really vegetarians who don't have the backbone to actually commit to it. They somehow feel that because they aren't directly involved with the act of killing what they are eating, they didn't have anything to do with it! Well, I call "Bullshit" on that. They are every bit as responsible for the death of the animal as the hunter is, they are just to lilly livered to do the job themselves. Do they think that people are just randomly killing these cows and pigs and that they are just helping clean up after these wanton acts of murder by eating the meat and wearing the shoes? If those woosies actually had the courage of their convictions, they would be living on bean sprouts and wearing their hemp sandals!

No, Aaron Sorkin is not anyone to listen to on this subject. As many or more animals go to their death because of people like him as ever do at the hands of hunters. The animal's life and death in this cause is much less noble than that of the one that dies at the hands of a hunter, after living it's life in the wild.

After reading this, you probably assume that I am an avid hunter. Quite to the contrary. I did grow up hunting, but switched from hunting with a gun to hunting with a camera when I was in my 20's. This was not done for any altruistic reasons or being anti hunting. It was because I didn't enjoy the taste of game any more than store bought, so I decided to skip all the extra work involved. For those of you who know me, "Yes, I was to damn lazy to get up early, tramp out in the cold and then have to cart and clean the beast." Instead, I could get up late, drive to the store and have a steak on the grill in an hour. Much easier for a slacker like myself. But I do understand that my hands are no less bloody than those of the hunter. The animal is just as dead either way and my desire to eat the carcass is the reason the creature died.

If you eat meat or use any animal based product or by-product, you are no more morally superior than the hunter, and in many ways, much less so!

Mayan Goddesses and Global Warming Charlatans

I see where the UN climate change (note the change from "global warming" as much of Europe is freezing it's collective ass off) folks are at it again in Cancun, Mexico.

They opened their meeting with a call to the Mayan Moon Goddess for guidance in "weaving a tapestry" with reason and creativity to form a climate change policy.

Where oh where do you start with something like this. I'm not even sure which is more offensive about this. Their statement or the news media reporting on it as if it were real news instead of as the unintended joke it is.

Let's start with the calling on the Moon Goddess. I actually don't have a major problem with the actual prayer. I'm more flabbergasted by the lack of protest on the part of folks like the ACLU and their ilk. Can you imagine the fuss that would have been raised if there had been a prayer to Jesus asking for guidance? We'd have been hearing about that for weeks. It would have been ridiculed by every university in the land and the MSM would have made jokes about it ad nausium. They would ridicule anything coming from the group like it had come from the flat earth society. But because it wasn't Christian centric, they would never THINK of belittling someone else's belief system.

Again, let me say, I don't really have a problem with the calling on Ixchel for guidance. I just don't believe that my God would have received the same reverence!

Let's move on to the "weaving of reason and creativity". Isn't this what exposed this whole global warming scam for the hoax that it is? The fact that they got "creative" in their playing with the facts and the way they chose what facts to use to best make their desired point. And when it became clear that they were playing fast and lose with the facts in order to justify their position, people started turning away from them in droves.

If they hadn't over sold their case and had tried a more subtle and measured approach, they might well have accomplished their goals. The majority of us would have been like the frog in the pan of water that they slowly raised the temp to boiling. We'd have sat there and not really noticed until it was to late.

And here they are, flat out telling us they are going to be "creative" with their reason. Isn't that kind of like the 3 card monte guy daring you to catch him as he cheats you?

And last, but definitely not least, why in the world would a legitimate news organization give this group of hucksters anymore attention than they would a gathering of gypsies? Hell, you'd stand a better chance of getting a straight answer from a group of gypsies than you would these clowns. And yet, there they are, hanging on every word, as if coming straight from the Oracle of Delphi herself.

The only reasonable explanation I can deduce is that they are in league with these charlatans. Both groups have the same political motivations. They want to see the US brought low. The only reason they could see the US being prosperous is so they could then take it from us and give it to others in the name of fairness. Well I for one call "Bullshit" on that. Fairness is when the person who uses their brains, brawn and capital to create something of value and then trades it for MORE capital. If alls they do is break even, they are doing something wrong. If others take from them unjustly, so they merely break even or worse yet lose ground, there is no incentive to continue to create.

Taking from those who earned their wealth to give to those who have failed to use their brains, brawn and capital wisely is not fairness! It is State sponsored theft! No more, no less.

There is nothing wrong with envying those who have more, so long as it motivates you to work smarter and harder. If on the other hand, all you do with that envy is try to get the government to give you someone else's, that's theft!

Clearly, many of those in the media have very socialistic leanings and thus hope that groups like this UN bunch of grifters is successful in stunting our progress.