Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Double Header



Bonus Cartoon!



Readers- I couldn't decide between the two cartoons shown above and decided to go with both of them today because neither really requires too much in the way of editorializing.

Iran, with tremendous support from a do-nothing American president, is on the cusp of completing nuclear weapons...and quite possibly triggering a Mideast war of survival for Israel. And part of the entirely justifiable reason that Israel is feeling so desperate is that Barack Obama is now making no secret of his lack of support for our (former) ally.

All of this is huge...but the news media continues to crank out stories about Herman Cain's accusers, the unspeakable disparities in American wealth, and other blah blah blah topics.

Which leads us rather neatly into the second cartoon. The same media which is pretending to recoil in horror at the idea that Herman Cain might have made an unwanted sexual overture (and immediately took "no" for an answer, even by his accuser's shaky account) idolizes Bill Clinton as a horndog and love machine... and makes no apologies for completely ignoring the story of his accused brutal rape of Juanita Broaddrick in 1978, which was far better documented (with contemporaneous witnesses) than anything currently being said about Herman Cain.

Put these stories together and you have a perfect (and sad) microcosm of the hypocrisy and trivialization of today's "news media."

Which contributes so much, and so directly, to the hypocrisy and trivialization found in our formerly great republic.

-

23 comments:

Chuck said...

Yes and Yes. Spot on, Stilton!

Pete(Detroit) said...

"I'd hit that"
No doubt he would. He'd probably hit the wookie. We have reasonable assertions that he tapped Hillary at least once, and THAT's pretty scary. That dude is the walking embodiment of the the saying that a stiff one has NO conscience...

As for the new media, shame on them. People should quit watching / buying papers so they all go broke - oh, wait...

As for Ron Paul wanting to 'talk to Iran' what kind of dubmass does not realize that it's a totally different situation? Russia / China really did NOT want to see Armageddon - suicide bombing Islamists see it as an express elevator to paradise. They cannot be allowed to have the big toys. Period.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

Aside from the obvious hypocrisy of their reporting, the mendacity of the MSM in their prestidigitation of current events never ceases to amaze me. And that the transparent nature of their modus operandi does not bring the wrath of the reading/watching/listening public down about their heads and shoulders boggles the mind. Is it possible that the majority of their audience believes this crap? In the converse, can the majority be so placid a race of sheep to allow it to continue thus?

Many pundits have opined that we, as a nation, are already too far gone to be retrieved. Our mode of government has mutated from one of representation to one of electability - eternal electability - and money. Our morals are all but non-existent. We happily murder our own out of convenience and "respect" for "rights" to do so. It's all very depressing.

If what is laid before us at present comes to pass, the "conservative" candidate will likely be the McCain-like chameleon from Massachusetts, and he will be torn apart on his record vs. his rhetoric, and Ă˜bama will rule the earth. Just FLICKING great. As Scrooge said to the third spirit: "Why show me this, if I am past all hope!...Oh, tell me I may sponge away the writing on this stone!”

I pray that it does not come to pass in this way. And I'm doing what I can to keep those around me informed. And I will cast my votes in both the primary and the election. I will continue to write letters to my "representation", and to the publications I read. And I will hope that SEIU/ACORN/Black Panther/et al cheating in the polls does not obviate my vote. It's about all we can do a individuals.

John the Econ said...

Caught on an open mic in Jerusalem yesterday, Nicolas Sarkozy told Obama that he could no longer bear Benjamin Netanyahu, and called him a "liar". Obama replies, “You are fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you,”. I'm sure that generated smiles in Tehran, which Ombama doesn't feel compelled to deal with. We won't know for another 12 months if Democratic Jews have yet to wake up to the fact that Democrats are not their friends.

When I initially heard that there was a Cain accuser who was going to actually step up with details, I thought "Maybe there is something to this." Then when I heard that Gloria Allred was involved, I just as quickly dismissed the thought.

Was I the only one who noticed the mainstream media repeatedly refer to Sharon Bialek as a "blonde bombshell"? Exactly how are we to take this latest accusation of sexual harassment seriously when even the mainstream media itself introduces her in such a dismissively sexist and objectifying manner?

And then there's the participation of Gloria Allred; a moniker that refers to both the attorney and her politics. I've been following the antics of Gloria for well over 30 years. She is the consummate legal whore, the Eliot Spitzer of the plaintiffs bar. Her modus operandi is to attach herself to people who have little to no legitimate case, but who are guaranteed to generate controversy and media exposure. These cases she takes before the media rarely ever go to court or are even settled, because they're crap. But they do get her on TV. The reward for her is the free advertising that keeps the phone ringing at her law firm.

The irony and rich hypocrisy of liberals like Allred, is that they are the reality of the evil straw-man capitalists that they constantly prop up to knock down; they seek out to exploit the stupid, weak, and powerless for their personal gain. They ultimately turn their supposed cause into a joke, and then when those people are of no further use, they're tossed out like used condoms.

Oh, and it appears that the 4th accuser has made a career of filing harassment suits. Perhaps if I accuse Herman Cain of harassing my dog, I can get on the news too.

Speaking of the mainstream media: As I wrote the above, I had the TV on tuned to one of the morning news shows. With everything that is going on in the world (Obama @ G20; Greece on the edge; Italy's government failed and bankruptcy looming; "Occupiers", rioting, looting & raping) what were the topics for an entire half hour? Michael Jackson doctor, Justin Bieber's maybe-baby, Nancy Grace's dancing, Mariah Carey's weight loss, Clint Eastwood's movie, and a morbidly obese middle-aged rapper who dropped dead of a heart attack; it was like "Entertainment Tonight" in the morning, masquerading as serious news. Combined with the "bombshell" references, is it any wonder seriously people do not take the mainstream media seriously anymore?

John the Econ said...

@Emmentaler Limburger, I think you're right. The last thing the GOP and the Democrats want is Herman Cain winning the nomination. The establishment GOP of squishies & crony capitalists that brought us Bush, McCain & Romney would finally lose their grip, and the Democrats would have to face the reality of a real "black" candidate who escaped the liberal plantation. It would, for once and for all, rob the Democrats of the "Republicans are all racists" card. They simply can't afford that.

Notice how the "establishment" is dealing with this; The new narrative is that "Conservatives prefer Cain, but Romney is electable so we must choose him, so even though his support continues to dwindle (even a midst the current the Cain scandal) we're going to proceed as though he's going to be the nominee". They simply refuse to take Cain seriously. And you're right. Once Romney becomes the candidate, the Democrats will ironically attack him from all sides as being just another squishy. What is sad is that the GOP still considers that a winning strategy. Which is why they deserve to lose.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Chuck- Thank you!

@Pete(Detroit)- Mrs Jarlsberg had to ask me what "I'd hit that" means. For anyone else out there unfamiliar with the phrase, it simply means that a guy would be willing to have sex (and only sex) with a woman. It basically establishes how low the man has set the bar.

And regarding Iran and nukes, you're right that "they cannot be allowed to have big toys."

@Emmentaler- Good post. And I share your concerns. Frankly, I don't see a good outcome for our country, but that doesn't mean there can't be one...somehow. During past crises (not just here, but around the world), I'm sure odds have seemed hopeless, but resistance continued until new strength and new solutions could be found. That's about as close to optimism as I come: that we are carrying the batons through troubling and dangerous surroundings, hoping to pass them along to fresh runners on the other side.

@John the Econ- You make your points so well that all I can do is agree straight down the line.

As far as the media goes, there is no distinction between politics and entertainment anymore. For that matter, in the great majority of cases there's no longer a distinction between politicians and entertainers.

Someday, historians (who won't be writing in English) may well choose the moment that television was introduced into politics (most famously with the Kennedy/Nixon debates) as the turning point which eventually ended the American experiment.

Suzy said...

People should know that the two main accusers have pretty bad past records as far as making false accusations and trying to get money out of them.....

The media has gotten worse than I've ever seen it in my life...I feel like even Fox News has been showing its true liberal colors lately.

Jim Hlavac said...

I find it just hypocritical that billion dollar media companies are thrilled with the Occupiers who are against billionaires. When I ask my liberal friends "are you for the total government communists or the no government anarchist occupiers?" they have no answer and tell me to shut up. When they complain about the bank bailouts I tell them Obama did the bailouts, they answer "he had to." It's the most bizarre mush I've ever encountered.

As for Cain, the poor man is being ripped apart for making a pass a woman? Isn't that what many men do? Now this is some evil which needs to be stomped from the land?

I used to think I knew what Liberals wanted -- some big safety net I guess -- now, I'm just not sure. But the one thing they seem to absolutely loathe is any questioning of their logic or plans, which they don't seem to have -- this they make clear to me with their impolite STFU's to me now, a lot. It's sad. They are "for" and "against" the same thing and cannot explain it further. How can one reason with this? You can't. I'm beginning to just stop talking to long time friends now. Which is even more sad. Thanks Occupy, for wrecking friendships.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Suzy- One of the accusers, who now works in the Obama administration, also filed a harrassment suit at another job and "demanded thousands of dollars in payment, a reinstatement of leave she used after an accident earlier in 2002, promotion on the federal pay scale (approx $12-16k a year forever) and a one-year fellowship to Harvard's Kennedy School of Government." The harrassment she was complaining about? A co-worker had mass copied an Internet email joke comparing women to computers. Her complaint - and extravagant demands - were eventually dropped for lacking merit.

Meanwhile, David Gregory - the host of "Meet the Press" - says that Cain should be removed from the GOP race by a Grand Wizard (like in the good ol' days of the Ku Klux Klan). Is that really less offensive than the phrase "nappy headed ho" which got Don Imus thrown off the air?

@Jim Hlavac- I read yet another article today (this one about "Occupy Dallas" in my own backyard) which says that the movement isn't about the message it's about the emotion. You know, like a crazy person shouting things and punching the air. The media is celebrating lack of logic. And I'm sorry, but anyone who "supports" the Occupiers until they have a message is a freaking idiot.

John the Econ said...

@Jim Hlavac, you ask a very good question: What do liberals want?

The only single thing I can distill their "wants" down to is this: They "want" someone else to pay for their personal "needs", even of that "someone else" is another liberal!

And thinking any deeper about the folly of that makes their brains hurt.

Mike Porter said...

Jim Hlavac: the term 'liberal logic' is something of an oxymoron, and any sort of 'plan' that may be construed from this kind of twisted wreckage is likely to have originated from a progressive source. The distinction here is that 'liberal' equals childish (not to be confused with childlike) and 'progressive' equals just plain evil, be it informed or not. Think of it in terms of a government program, which is usually the direct result of employing the manipulation of a set of muddled thought processes to produce conflicting directives, with the end result being both tremendous waste and loss of individual freedom. So here we have an automobile with dems and repubs in the front seat, fighting over how and when to apply the accelerator and the brake. The progressive sits in the back seat, directing them to compromise and apply both equally... it is, of course, the only fair way. A true conservative would have no qualms with getting all feet off of the gas pedal and letting the damn thing roll to a stop if it keeps us out of the ditch or running out of fuel. A true liberal would argue that we're still a long way from the utopian rest stop, and since little Timmy has to pee really, really bad, we should not only continue, but try to go even faster. A true progressive would try mightily to obscure the fact that little Timmy had the option of pissing in the ditch all along.

Hence the line: "the man in the back said everyone attack and it turned into a ballroom blitz".

John the Econ said...

@Stilton: After all, beyond its subtle Marxist substance, wasn't Obama's "hope and change" narrative of '08 all just "emotion"? Now that the occupiers (mostly disillusioned Obama people) have had to live with 3 years of Obama reality with no end in sight, they still refuse to accept reality. I think "lack of logic" is the only thing they have left to cling to. If they were intellectually capable of facing reality, they'd have to accept the Tea Party.

DougM said...

"I'd hit that ... and the Constitution should be amended to allow a me to have a third term."

TheOldMan said...

Once again I am confused. I thought "it was only sex", "everyone lies about sex", "is" is such an odd word, and a bunch of other voices in my head. Can someone help me here?

Pete(Detroit) said...

In my (admittedly limited) experience, the Commie Libs (and yes, I know a few, who even seem to have functioning synaptic connectivity) truly believe that a Communist system is Fair and Good. I don't get that, but at least they're honest. Then there's the power hungry ones who, well, want power. Many of the rest just want everybody to be happy, and warm, w/ enough (veggies) to eat.
Some actually take positive steps - Habitat for humanity, Peace Corps, running food co-ops, that sort of thing - and more power to 'em. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line many bought into the concept of the value of feelings. It therefore becomes easy for the commies and power hungry to sell them on ideas / plans / programs that FEEL good - Community Reinvestment Act being a prime example. To any logical person it is intuitively obvious that giving someone a loan they cannot possibly pay back is doing NO ONE any favors - not the borrower, the lender, the lenders stock holders, other borrowers (as rates have to go up to cover the costs of defaulted loans - see also credit cards) or the taxpayers who eventually end up holding the bag.

But doesn't it FEEL good to know that someone who would not have had a home, has one?
(Until it's re-possessed, and they become 'victims of the system, rigged against them' and have to suffer the horrors of eviction...)

This is just one quick example, but if you look at programs (in general, not "just" the libbie ones) the ones that are abject failures, and often have results that are the direct OPPOSITE of what was INTENDED, I think you'll find most of them 'feeling based' not 'reality based.'

Because the reality is, we need fewer programs, less government, and more personal responsibility. But then, to get the good feeling of doing something, you would actually have to DO something, with your OWN efforts, or your OWN monies.
And people hate that.

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

Liberals have no problem holding Conservatives to the standards they espouse. Since Liberals have no standards they can't be held to any. That explains why Herman Cain is the devil incarnate and Slick Willie (The Rapist) Clinton is a hero. This has always worked for them in the past, but I think more Americans are scratching their heads and saying "Wait...what?"

pryorguy said...

Herman Cain laid it on the line yesterday defending himself...only wish he could have asked why Slick Willie has been given such a pass on his shenanigans, wouldn't have blamed him if he had, but I think he is probably above all that. I have every confidence in Herman, and do not belive he is trying to pull a fast one like Anthony Weiner, John Edwards, etc. Just don't want to see a good man's rep maligned, because I am sure he is a candidate for all the right reasons!

Earl said...

Remember Carville's famous line about Paula Jones...what you get when you drag a dollar bill through a trailer court? The msm lapped this up and diligently and dutifully repeated this quote ad nausuem. Most of the public drank the koolaid and assumed she was a whore. Too bad Carville fingered the wrong woman and was decades too early with his wisdom. Because that's pretty much my opinion of Sharon Bialik. She does not act, dress, or sound like a real victim of sexual discrimination. Right now she appears to be nothing more than a failed hooker.

Perplexed said...

BTW, I guess all the hooliganism of the union people in Ohio was enough to scare the populace into voting the way the unionists wanted. That's where we are at, I suppose, just act out enough and you get results.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

@Pete: Most libs can't seem to see past the theory behind socialism & communism. In theory, they are great; however, that theory ignores human nature, and the tendency of those charged with the power of redistribution invariably go to the dark side, and use that power to both perpetuate it and to benefit themselves. In short, I believe that the saying those who refuse to learn from history are destined [doomed...] to repeat it was originally intended as a warning to those who refuse to look past the textbook versions of their particular "ism" to its actual track record. And others are precisely those who are looking to benefit from its implementation...

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Readers- I haven't had time to comment much this evening, but you're doing fine without me. Some excellent and thoughtful remarks above!

pryorguy said...

Totally off the subject...but....

ISLAMIC GUYS...GOTTA LOVE'EM...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=yl8g8S6F3do

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYybBnXmsY8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtfi0LGvYR8&feature=related

Reaganite Republican said...

Linked

Reaganite's Sunday Funnies