Monday, July 17, 2006

The Disaster the Bush Regime Has Made of the Middle East Exposes the Utter Corruption of America's Ruling Elite

You might wonder why so little has been said here about the Middle East, I have to admit that the combination of frustration, exasperation and sheer fury have succeeded in leaving me at a loss to say anything.

But after a weekend of George W. Bush pig and BBQ jokes when asked serious questions about ongoing killing, Condi Rice boldfaced lying about the relationship that her and Georges Iraq war has to the situation in Lebanon and seeing Newt Gingrich on Russert yesterday leaves a question that has to be asked.

How incompetent does a right-wing Republican have to be before the ruling elites who own and control our media calls them on it? How big does that pile of bodies have to get? How many displaced people does it have to produce? How much more hated does the United States have to become? Does their desire for tax cuts, for looted national assets for graft blind them to the the criminal neglect of regime they've supported? Are they so like drunken sailors that tomorrow's consequences are nothing to them?

Since our elites have proven themselves to be entirely corrupt it is to We, the People to depose them and replace them with responsible adults with a sense of public purpose. If we don't then we will still be the ones who pay but we won't have anyone else to blame but ourselves.

How incompetent does a right-wing Republican have to be before the ruling elites who own and control our media calls them on it?

Well there's the problem (emphasis added) -- to parody a famous quote (was it by James or Adams?): the progression in media personalities (of a certain stereotypically scrappy ethnic group) from Matthew Carey to Tim Russert is enough to disprove Darwin's theory of evolution. It used to be that media types were either in the media 'cause they hated the powerful groups that excluded them (e.g. in the revolutionary days, Nixon, rather than riding a wave of right-wing-resurgence to the Presidency out of spite of the moderate Republicans who wouldn't let him join their kewl kids club, would have been a publisher constantly editorializing against the Washington elites) or even if they were part of the ruling elite (Franklin comes to mind), they nonetheless felt the need to occassionally hate on their own kind.

I don't know when the changeover happened, but it certainly happened generations ago (remember Hearst?) although back then not all the moguls were such lick-spittle kissers-up to the right wing elites, if only because back then the military-industrial complex was more of a bipartisan affair (as well as opposition to it: remember Ike's farewell which was in some ways just a warning about JFK?) e.g., some of them kissed up to the Kennedeys big-time ... and enabled 'Nam just as in our generation they've pushed Iraq.
Maybe you've hit on the theory of TVloution, alberich.

And I'm giving you half a day to use that one before I steal it for my own.
But, but, but...Bush is a popular president. He's folksy; the Midwesterners like that. Rice is really, really smart. Really. Bush and Rice talk tough and act tough. They don't need boring sissy stuff like "diplomacy" or "competence". They root out the bad guys and boss around the good guys...

Actually, in a truthful answer to your question, I believe it's because the media like to present heroes to Americans. We in America like heroes. Notice how we're now required to believe that everyone who wears a police, fireman or military uniform must be a hero. And a nation of heroes must have really big heroes to lead them. The sordid reality of political conflicts and foreign policy entanglements don't make good headlines. But Bush talking tough with Blair or Rice sparring with foreign diplomats forwards that heroism narrative.

Plus, investigative journalism is time-consuming and costs money. Not good for the bottom line...
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?