Friday, September 25, 2009

MSM: Squealer Incarnate

Often, in order to define or understand some modern-day phenomenon, it is instructive to refer to the writings that have withstood the test of time.

It is hard to imagine a more appropriate and revealing application of that truism than the use of George Orwell's Animal Farm to illustrate what is going on in America today.  The parallels between Orwell's characters and the current elements of government, other political institutions, and assorted enablers are eerily and precisely striking.  It is almost as if Orwell was sitting at a keyboard only yesterday, writing about a  21st century farm, America, instead of at a typewriter in 1943-44, addressing the Russian Revolution of some ninety years ago.

Although it would be a highly interesting exercise to identify and thoroughly develop the 2009 characters, my intent is to only provide the definitive answer to an exercise generated by Bernard Goldberg a few days ago, namely, what the best name for today's media, which clearly no longer is reflective of main stream America.

Well, Mr. Goldberg, I submit for your consideration the term Squealer Incarnate, or Squealer for short, as the perfect name for the collective socialism enablers at NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, AP, NY Times, Washington Post, etc.! etc.! etc.!

The evidence to support my recommendation follows in the form of character descriptions from two sources.  I have bold-ed the parts of their descriptions/summaries that I feel are particularly pertinent:

          "Squealer

          Throughout his career, Orwell explored how politicians manipulate language in an age of
           mass media. In Animal Farm, the silver-tongued pig Squealer abuses language
           to justify Napoleon’s actions and policies to the proletariat by whatever means
           seem necessary. By radically simplifying language—as when he teaches the   
           sheep to bleat “Four legs good, two legs better!”—he limits the terms of debate. 
           By complicating language unnecessarily, he confuses and intimidates the 
           uneducated, as when he explains that pigs, who are the “brainworkers” of the 
           farm, consume milk and apples not for pleasure, but for the good of their 
           comrades. In this latter strategy, he also employs jargon (“tactics, tactics”) as 
           well as a baffling vocabulary of false and impenetrable statistics, engendering in 
           the other animals both self-doubt and a sense of hopelessness about ever 
           accessing the truth without the pigs’ mediation. Squealer’s lack of conscience 
           and unwavering loyalty to his leader, alongside his rhetorical skills, make him   
           the perfect propagandist for any tyranny. Squealer’s name also fits him well: 
           squealing, of course, refers to a pig’s typical form of vocalization, and Squealer’s 
           speech defines him. At the same time, to squeal also means to betray, aptly 
           evoking Squealer’s behavior with regard to his fellow animals."



           "Squealer: Squealer is an intriguing character in Orwell's Animal Farm.  He's first 
           described as a manipulator and persuader.  Orwell narrates, "He could turn 
           black into white."  Many critics correlate Squealer with the Pravda, the Russian
           newspaper of the 1930's.  Propaganda was a key to many publications, and since 
           their was no television or radio, the newspaper was the primary source of media 
           information.  So the monopoly of the Pravda was seized by Stalin and his new
           Bolshevik regime.  In Animal Farm, Squealer, like the newspaper, is the link 
           between Napoleon and other animals.  When Squealer masks an evil intention of 
           the pigs, the intentions of the communists can be carried out with little 
           resistance  and without political disarray.  ..."

I suggest that every concerned American read, or re-read, Animal Farm, or at least go to one of these sites and brush up on what George Orwell was saying about totalitarian governments.

And start calling the "MSM" Squealer - it will get under their skin, I'll bet!

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

I can see clearly, now!

After his abomination of a speech at the U.N. (Upchuck Nations) today, Obama has cemented in the minds of all who will open their eyes that Sarah Palin, on her worst day ever, was more prepared to be our President than he was, is, or ever will be. 

When, in the future, the idiots of the media try to railroad her on the basis of not being prepared for such a lofty position, the vast majority of the American people will just laugh at them.

What are they going to use in his defense:  His tasteful selection of  gifts to foreign heads of state?  His paying obeisance to every thug ruler in the civilized world?  His endless apologizing for the exceptional-ism of  the United States?  His clearly superior way of strong-arming legislators to get things done?  His disdain for the American People?  His willingness to actually work with Republicans to reach workable solutions on important issues? 

There are plenty of other equally revealing examples, but the usual media suspects will, I am sure, be looking for ways to divert attention from them all. 

But there is one nagging little problem:  a lot of our fellow citizens have opened their eyes, and do not like much of what they are seeing.

Bank of What???

Have you seen this video of Fox's Meghan Kelly interviewing a Bank of America flack?  This was concerning the actions of a BoA branch manager in Gaffney, South Carolina, who removed American flags that were being placed, by a family friend, along the route of the funeral procession for Lance Corporal Christopher Fowlkes, a United States Marine who was killed in Afghanistan.  As I understand it, the reasons the manager gave were:  it was against bank policy and, some of their customers might be offended by the flags.

I deeply admire Meghan Kelly.  In fact, I think she is the best in the news part of the business.  She asks tough questions and routinely pushes for answers literally until the time allotted for an interview runs out.  Her style is decidedly different from the tendencies of many other Fox news personalities to pander to the interviewee after a good question or two.  I just wish she had drilled into this even further in nailing this BoA scum's hide to the wall.

The idiot that Bank of America sent out to do damage control very carefully kept to his talking points, even in the face of the fact that his points were, at best, poorly conceived, and at worst, reflective of a corporate policy of anti-Americanism.  But, maybe they just want to go along with Obama's view of where we should go as a nation.  After all, he does have America's interest at heart, right?  And, there will have to be banks, right?  Well, why not BoA?  They won't even need to change their name (except maybe to change the "c" to a "k").

I have a seething anger about this, because it was much more than dis-respecting the flag. One expects all leftists to do that. But, one would hope that some of them would have the decency to respect the dead, especially one who gave his precious life to protect the freedoms that allow them to be successful in their crass, greedy, stupid and insensitive politically correct behavior.   This was not the funeral of just another old white person trying to help Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd's belief that whites should step aside and allow blacks to move into power.  This was in honor of a United States Marine who died in the service of his country!  Who died to protect the right of BoA's idiot managers and smooth talking spokesmen to commit such despicable acts!  BoA is no better than the Associated Press creeps who, in the interest of either greed or propaganda, showed utter contempt for our military and their families just a couple of weeks ago in showing the death of Lance Corporal Joshua "Bernie" Bernard, in total disregard for the family's wishes.  Anything for money and political gain, huh, AP?

See if this litany of his vacuous BoA bromides, in response to Meghan's pointed questioning, makes you feel better about the unspeakable insult to Lance Corporal Fowlkes and his family and friends:  "gonna respect the family's privacy"; it shouldn't have happened; this doesn't represent any policy of the BoA; reiterated to our branch managers our policy; we encourage branches to fly the flag; not acceptable and people know that; should use better judgment, and a few more, just as empty of real meaning or understanding.  Man, you sure convinced me!

Obviously!  Obviously!  Obviously!  This guy may have set a record for the use of that shallow catchall word which in reality, just points out that, if it were so obvious, this mind-numblingly stupid incident would not have occurred in the first place.  Have you got that, BoA?

Also, I'm sorry to have to tell you that it is not so obvious that you care about anything other than damage control.  What is obvious is that BoA has failed to educate its spokesmen in the most important maxim of public relations:  that the most important thing is sincerity - once you learn to fake that, you've got it made!  This guy failed, not only through his over-use of callow attempts at deflection, but also in the fact that, in his remarks, he never acknowledged that this was a direct  insult to our Marine, but just kept insisting that there is no BoA corporate policy to dis-respect the flag. 

No corporate policy against the flag? Indeed! How about a corporate policy requiring allegiance to the flag as a condition of employment, with special emphasis on total support FOR THOSE WHO DEFEND OUR FLAG?

I am deeply ashamed to admit that my house mortgage and car note are held by this bunch of blowhard anti-American opportunists!  I am considering paying them both off immediately or re-financing through some other institution, and I vow to never deal with this bunch again!

How about you joining me?



Monday, September 21, 2009

Do You Think I'm a Racist Just Because ...#4?



When I first started my Town Hall blog, Two Cents' Worth, about a year ago, there were some columns appearing which extolled the "sudden advancement" of race relations in America because B. H. Obama was elected to our presidency.  They were based on a major flaw (my word, not theirs) in the current, wildly popular premise that America has been a racist country, and now, all of a sudden, that has gone away.  It was then, and still is, my feeling that racism has been dying out in this country for quite a while now, and we are  all better off for it. 

So, anyway, I had this brilliant idea to do a little survey to hopefully get some idea of what various people thought would constitute racism on the part of an individual, using some basic behaviors or perceptions that many of us have. 

It was a modest little effort, and despite getting (I am sure) thousands upon thousands of hits, it got an even more modest response.  No matter!  It was a good exercise for me then and  I am sure that someday my grandchildren will be able to show it off and brag about my farsightedness.

The technique that I used was to do a base post, Do you think I am Racist Just Because..., which established the background and parameters for the series, and, as well, introduced the first scenario just to get things rolling.  I then provided additional scenarios in separate posts.  See them here at:   #2? and #3?

Today, in visiting some sites around the net,  I ran across a brilliant chart, entitled Obama Criticism Flow Chart, at Missourah.com.  This simple yet powerful chart (included below) graphically reflects the root cause of one's state of mind relative to the antics being carried on in Washington these days.  The intense disagreement that you might have with those antics may not be the simple disgust with socialism that you thought it was.

My own feeling is that leftists have a propensity for using the race card when the going gets a little tough (and that seems to be happening at an increasing rate).  In fact, I will go so far as to say that the racism charges hurled by Carter, Pelosi and other left-wing ideologues are generally really false claims to deflect attention from their inability to answer tough questions, or to protect some sacred leftist cow.  The "r" word, and its use as a tool for intimidation, appears to be much more prevalent by these "tolerant liberals" than it is by any group of right wing hardliners.  It is racism, and is despicable, in the hands of either side.

The new president has spent vast amounts of energy, real money and political capital and has squandered our total international prestige to drag us into situations that no American populace has ever had to face before.  The socialist implications of following him down the paths that he is trying to blaze for our country are staggering to the imagination, with the very real possibility that within 5 years there will be no individual freedoms left.  Probably 25% of our population is chomping at the bit to go with him, not understanding that they will not be the governing class, but are just useful idiots.  Other than the relatively small number who would comprise the major and minor party officials and the state security apparatus, the rest of them will be in the same freedom starved state as the rest of us.


He, aided and abetted by the leftist legislators and press, has misrepresented the real probable impacts to individuals as well as the nation, and has stifled opposing views about the "health crisis" even while claiming to be open to ideas from the other side.  He has  totally ignored the will of the growing number of people who simply want to be heard.  And, yet, the people have raised enough of a stink that they can't even pass the bill, even with a veto-proof legislature.  So, what's the path to be taken?


Why, as predictable as clockwork, the collective rant from that gang of thieves starts spreading across the land:  the only reason these right wing crazies are against this is because our poor leader has the effrontery to be, gasp, black!

So, if you find yourself getting a little miffed with our leader, maybe it's only because you can't be sure whether it is a real concern or if you are just a racist.  To clear your mind, just walk yourself through this chart.

In the words of the Missourah.com web-site:  "It’s pretty exhausting trying to keep track of what is legitimate criticism of President Obama and what is racial hatred. That’s why I developed this handy flow chart:"


Obama Criticism Flow Chart

Obama Criticism Flow Chart







Joe Wilson's Truth

Joe Wilson's only mistake was that he didn't keep talking while he had the floor - he should have spelled out the details until forcibly removed or gagged. Even the Mangy Socialist Media (MSM) would have switched the focus to him just to get it on tape. Those few who were watching for their, seemingly, hourly dose of socialist doctrine would have at least heard some truth, in that evening of studied avoidance of such. 

Note: This was the moment in time which forever established the ultimate nickname for our current president. There are a lot of very creative manipulations of the name that he has chosen to go by, and most of them reveal a solid statement on his character or ideology. But, forever, the term ”staring like a deer caught in the headlights” will carry a mental image of Obama’s face at that point in time. Henceforth, he should rightfully be known as Obambi, which many have used before, but which now has the imprimatur of the House chamber and national television cameras.  

Obambi's response to Mr. Wilson's contention: staring around for Saul Alinsky or Soros or Ayers, as if to say "You didn’t tell me what to do when someone actually stands up during my speeches and correctly points out that I am lying. What do I do now?” Finding none of them present in the chamber, he abjectly looks to the teleprompter, but no help there, either.  

At least he had his wits about him enough to not look toward Heaven for Alinsky, or to turn around for consultation with Ghoul Pelosi or Bilious Biden. I thought for a moment he was going to take the Jeremiah Wright approach, requesting the Almighty to strike down this white American who was telling the truth, and just as he was on a roll with his tapestry of lies! 

Then, he remembered just in time that God won’t listen to a person who champions the murder of babies just as they enter the world. More importantly, he realized that he would lose the support of a few million liberals just for pretending to acknowledge that there is a God. Can’t take a chance on shrinking that base!  

Now, all of that thought processing might have taken the average citizen several seconds to sort through, but this is a really smart man, as we are constantly reminded by the Sqealers and elitists of all stripes. In a few blinks of an eye, he went through all those possibilities and came to the perfect answer. He calmly looked toward his accuser and semi-forcefully mumbled “not true.” 

That is what liberals think of as a brilliant put-down, and he didn’t even have to use foul language, which, of course, further strengthened their view of him as the greatest statesman of our time (maybe forever, but, then, Stalin is a formidable standard for them). They will also sing odes one day to the way he picked right back up on reading his tele-prompted speech after the rabble-rouser Wilson was put in his place.  

Of course, one can’t blame Mr. Wilson for not grabbing the opportunity and running with it. He may very well have been looking around himself to see who had dared utter such truth, especially in a chamber that has witnessed so little of that commodity for a half century or more. After all, it is repugnant to think of a member of this venerated House (of ill repute) who doesn’t strive to live up to the decorum and moral standards of the likes of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson-Lee, John Murtha, Jerrold Nadler, just to name a few of our courtly representatives. And to think that in this room have sat the tainted (er, I mean sainted) Traitor Ted Kennedy, Chuck "Slimeball" Schumer, John McCain (the Benedict Arnold of conservatism), Lindsey “Can I Find a Way to Compromise on Principles so I Can Look Powerful” Graham, and a host of other craven power seekers.  

How can one possibly be so crass as to soil the haunts of that bunch of sycophants and toadies? They, and others, will lead the charge to brand Joe Wilson as something other than “truth teller,” and there is no doubt in my mind that they will herd together to censure him, simply for stating what the vast majority of Americans would have been thinking or saying, had they had the stomach to even watch this charade of a speech. 

I like the way Sandy Rios puts it in a Town Hall article. “If the chamber of the Congress of the United States of America isn’t the right place to fight for the future of the Republic, then where is that place?”  

In the spirit of truth-telling, and probably to comply with McCain’s campaign reform deal with the devil, I must admit that I sent Joe Wilson a relatively small donation for his re-election effort, as did my wife in a separate action. Mr. Steele and the RNC might take note that Joe Wilson is the type of Republican that I told them I would be willing to support, in my post on Two Cents' Worth, my Town Hall blog, entitled An Open Message to Mr. Steele and the RNC!

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Is That A Serious Question? - revisited

I do not remember ever being particularly moved by anything Pat Buchanan said or wrote.  What little I do seem to remember leads me to the conclusion that the man is out to promote himself more than to further any particular philosophy.  It's not that I ignore him or turn the noise down or change the channel, as if he were a Clinton, Obama or McCain.  With Buchanan, I try to listen, but just tune out after two or three minutes, since that is how long it takes for the self-promotion to kick in.  He is very similar in that way to the likes of Ron Paul and Bill O'Reilly.  Each of these reminds me of the self-centered party goer who brings his own bottle of wine to the party, because whatever the host has is not good enough for him.

Actually (you may find this hard to believe, I suppose), the intent of this post is not to bash Mr. Buchanan per se, but to address a column by him, posted on Townhall.com, entitled Is America Coming Apart?  I did read this one through to the end because he occasionally writes something that is worth reading.  In this case, I have yet to decide what his purpose is for a piece like this.  The obvious choices would be:  he needs the money, to keep his name out there, or he was suffering from jet lag.  Otherwise, I can't see why he would expend any mental effort on such drivel because it has no meat on its bones.  In today's vernacular, it comes across as a fluff piece.

I mean, is there any question in your mind about whether America is coming apart?  Has no one been watching  the un-constitutional or treasonous actions of our congress and White House denizens over the last couple of decades, reaching alarming levels in 2006 with George Bush totally abandoning even the pretense of conservatism?  And now we are at the critical point, with the ascendancy of the socialist congress and the election of a full blown socialist engineer who,  through the hiring of dedicated communists, socialists, Marxists and general all around nut cases into powerful positions with no accountability, is subverting our Constitution.  I think the question would more accurately be "Is America Purposefully Being Driven Apart?" 

It's not that any one of his statements is necessarily wrong, but rather that the totality is just so shallow, based as it is on comparing actions by the Right and Left to arrive at - nothing!  No hint is given as to what Mr. Buchanan's personal conclusion is.  That is, undoubtedly, a nice approach when the author intends to make one think, but there is nothing of substance to chew on in this article - the facts are what the facts are.

There is one aspect to this that I feel Mr. Buchanan could have addressed to actually salvage this piece and have a chance to influence some thought, that being:  what are the implications of the success of the relative positions to our way of life?  Instead, his approach leaves one to the inference that he believes that there is moral equivalence between the opposing positions in the examples used - it's just that people have differences of opinion. 

Well, there is a major difference between the positions described.  All one has to do is to ask the question "What are the opposing positions based on?"  The answer, of course, is that the positions of one side are generally based on the Constitution and the belief that we should have the freedom to pursue the best life that we are capable of, based on our own merits and/or hard work.  The positions of the other side appear to be focused on leading us into a world that may eerily resemble that of George Orwell's  1984.  Each of us has to decide, while we can, whether that should make a difference in what we want our country to be for ourselves and our future generations.

We'll know the early fruits of our collective decision in the results of the 2010 congressional elections.  I just wish Mr. Buchanan, and a lot of other "real" conservative writers, with national audiences, would concentrate their considerable talents on the things that really matter:  things that would generate a powerful urgency in our fellow countrymen to turn out the congressional scoundrels in 2010, and give us a start back to political sanity.

Keep in mind this observation by William E. Simon:  "Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote."

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

not exceeding the limit

Posted on my Town Hall blog, Two Cents' Worth, at the inception of my new blog.

Having become more than a bit miffed at the poor treatment of one of my favorite columnists, Burt Prelutsky,  just because he dared to write about the real Islamo-fascist activities, I am seriously considering taking my talents(?) and leaving myself. 

I also have to admit that I was initially prodded into it by my daughter because she was seeing my frustration with the Town Hall approach.

So, I have started another blog, on the Blogger site, named "not exceeding the limit."  I have written my first post for that blog, entitled "Joe Wilson's Truth."  I think you will enjoy it and would certainly appreciate the audience.  Drop by, please!  I will also be posting my favorites from the Two Cents' Worth blog to the new one.  Have not decided if I want to do the same in reverse.
In case you are curious about the name, it comes from a quote from Elbert Hubbard, American writer, publisher, artist, and philosopher who died, along with his wife, in the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915.  This is a great philosophy to live by:


"Every man is a damn fool for at least five minutes every day; wisdom consists in not exceeding the limit."

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Some time ago, there was an article on The Belmont Club, entitled The last brother, about Kalid Sheik Mohammed and the specific terrorist-related information gained and "lessons good guys through the use of the interrogation techniques, notably waterboarding, used on him.

It was an interesting article, and I decided to post a comment that reflects, I feel sure, the single proposition that every opponent of interrogation should be required to answer while connected to a polygraph.  The response, or lack thereof, to my comment was underwhelming, to say the least.  As I was reminded again, most of the commentors to such blogs are well known to each other (a merry little band as it were) and, without fail, tend to spiral off into in-depth discussions of nothing related to the specific article.  No real harm there, other than reflecting a general lack of interest in serious questions, but it did remind me to be a little judicious about where to put my two cents' worth in.

Nevertheless, I still have received no feedback to my comment, so I repeat it here in the hope that someone else might have a thought on it:

"A most interesting and stimulating discussion. I can’t help but wonder, though, about the following scenario:

Let’s just say that our intelligence people picked up a rumor from a reliable source, and had it verified by another reliable source, that there was a terrorist attack (whether by Osama bin Laden or Timothy McVeigh or Bill Ayers or whoever) planned that would be aimed specifically at the city that YOU or YOUR family lives in. Let’s further say that they had a person or two under surveillance or in their possession who were identified as very possibly being a part of that plot. Because of the short time period to respond, they can only evacuate half of the people in that area.

Who among us would then say “It is immoral and criminal to waterboard (or worse) to get what information they could from them?”"

A Revealing Scenario

Some time ago, there was an article on The Belmont Club, entitled The last brother, about Kalid Sheik Mohammed and the specific terrorist-related information gained and "lessons good guys through the use of the interrogation techniques, notably waterboarding, used on him.

It was an interesting article, and I decided to post a comment that reflects, I feel sure, the single proposition that every opponent of interrogation should be required to answer while connected to a polygraph.  The response, or lack thereof, to my comment was underwhelming, to say the least.  As I was reminded again, most of the commentors to such blogs are well known to each other (a merry little band as it were) and, without fail, tend to spiral off into in-depth discussions of nothing related to the specific article.  No real harm there, other than reflecting a general lack of interest in serious questions, but it did remind me to be a little judicious about where to put my two cents' worth in.

Nevertheless, I still have received no feedback to my comment, so I repeat it here in the hope that someone else might have a thought on it:

"A most interesting and stimulating discussion. I can’t help but wonder, though, about the following scenario:

Let’s just say that our intelligence people picked up a rumor from a reliable source, and had it verified by another reliable source, that there was a terrorist attack (whether by Osama bin Laden or Timothy McVeigh or Bill Ayers or whoever) planned that would be aimed specifically at the city that YOU or YOUR family lives in. Let’s further say that they had a person or two under surveillance or in their possession who were identified as very possibly being a part of that plot. Because of the short time period to respond, they can only evacuate half of the people in that area.

Who among us would then say “It is immoral and criminal to waterboard (or worse) to get what information they could from them?”"

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Contempt of Citizen!

How many of us, after watching the treatment of ordinary citizens in these town meetings, still believe that these Magnificent Idiots that were sent to Washington are there to serve us?  After seeing video of several such meetings, I never heard a straightforward attempt to answer a single question asked by the public (other than the softballs gently tossed to Obama, who even screwed those answers up).

Any true American has to be awed by the sight of ordinary citizens gathering their courage and walking into these town meetings with these almighty Senators and Representatives, knowing that they will be accused of being un-American, organized mobsters, and/or Nazis.   Knowing also that those wonderful champions of the little man are more than willing turn their government subsidized union thugs on them, not only at the meeting, but also that their homes and businesses may be targeted.  One must constantly remind oneself that these are the same congressional "representatives" who rushed back from Washington to gather input from their citizen bosses in order to figure how to best reflect the desires of those "folks from back home" in their deliberations. But, of course, that is not what they were doing.

It is clear that the representatives do not "need" input from these citizens.  They already know what they intend to do and do not want the citizens to question anything about it.  After all, more than one of these arrogant feces outlets said in so many words to the great unwashed:  "this is MY townhall meeting" or "you are MY constituents" or the most used answer "that is not in the bill" or my favorite "shut up and sit down, I will vote as I see fit."  I can't even begin to comprehend the gall it would require to stand up there and say that I hadn't even read the bill.

Can you imagine the response such arrogance would have received in the early years of our republic?  I can well imagine public floggings and some stock time for the antics we have seen from Obama the Racist, Pelosi the Idiot Queen, Milquetoast Reid, Sheila Jackson "Cell Phone" Lee , LLoyd Dogged, Arlene "Now, hold on a Minute" Spectre (wink) and scores of others who are equally guilty.  These "servants of the People" take themselves so seriously that they charge ordinary citizens (their bosses, remember?) with contempt of congress if they don't like something that the citizen says to them.  What is the old British saying about the world being turned upside down?

Well, I hereby propose that we establish a law against Aggravated Contempt of Citizenry! The punishment would be instant removal from Washington and permanent revocation of rights to ever return.  You know, we could turn this thing around in only a couple of weeks!