I was just watcing a show on the History Channel.  In it, they were discussing the settling of Texas and the Texas Revolution.  They had a historian on the show who was clearly a left-wing kind of guy.  He had previously made statements that were somewhat derogatory towardd traditional Texas values.  Eventually, he made what is perhaps the most stupid statement a historian has ever made.

While discussing the Texas Revolution, he said (paraphrasing,) "The Texas Revolution and the Republic of Texas are perfect examples of the success of illegal immigration."  Let's analyze that from the perspective of Mexico:

1.  A group of illegal immigrants move into a part of Mexico (along with legal immigrants.)

2.  The immigrants decide that they don't like the laws of Mexico which they are livng under.

3.  The immigrants revolt.

4.  The immigrants defeat the Mexican Army and capture the Mexican President.

5.  The immigrants demand to be given their independence from Mexico and the President agrees to their terms.

6.  The immigrants form their own country from the former Mexican state.

7.  The new country is eventually granted U.S. statehood.

Yeah, that really worked out well for Mexico.

Posted by: Steve L. at 09:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

In a lecture sponsored by the Australian Broadcasting Company, Rupert Murdoch called out the MSM. My favorite quote:

"Far from celebrating this citizen journalism, the establishment media reacted defensively. During an appearance on Fox News, a CBS executive attacked the bloggers in a statement that will go down in the annals of arrogance. '60 Minutes,' he said, was a professional organization with 'multiple layers of checks and balances.' By contrast, he dismissed the blogger as 'a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing.' But eventually it was the guys sitting in their pajamas who forced Mr. Rather and his producer to resign.

"Mr. Rather and his defenders are not alone," he continued. "A recent American study reported that many editors and reporters simply do not trust their readers to make good decisions. Let's be clear about what this means. This is a polite way of saying that these editors and reporters think their readers are too stupid to think for themselves."

Thank you, Rupert.  When you compbine that with the fact that the MSM is in the tank for the Democrats, you have a bad combination.  There are lots of people who will blindly believe whatever the media tells them.  They stick to one source for all their news.  The opportunity for abuse is too large.

Now, the media is right aout this stupidity in one sense.  Too many people cannot distinguish between news and commentary.  Unfortunately, that line has been blurred in recent years by cable news programs that present a news story followed by commentary.  After a while, it all becomes globbed together as news.  That's why the Keith Olbermanns of the world are dangerous.  They know people think that what they say is news and they use that to effect.

This will probably never change.  People will still unfailingly believe the news and newsmen will use that notion to their advantage.  Bloggers and other non-traditional media will be the firewall stopping it from engulfing everyone.

Posted by: Steve L. at 02:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

Apparently, the reason that the media failed to look into our President-elect's past is because right-wingers made too big a fuss about it. At least, that's what Camille Paglia seems to think. For instance, questions about Obama's birth certificate were never reported because:

Thanks to their own blathering, fanatical overkill, of course, the right-wing challenges to the birth certificate never gained traction.

And who can forget Obama's uninvestigated ties to Bill Ayers and his terrorist wife:

Blame for the failure of this issue to take hold must also accrue to the conservative talk shows, which use the scare term "radical" with simplistic sensationalism, blanketing everyone under the sun from scraggly ex-hippies to lipstick-chic Nancy Pelosi.

 So, see?  We are to blame for Obama winning.  Had we only ignored him, the MSM would have been all over him like white on rice.  We have only ourselves to blame.

Posted by: Steve L. at 02:04 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Camille Paglia is NOT a tool!! A tool is useful. She is more like a bag of hair clippings....

Posted by: Aggie Sprite at January 08, 2009 02:06 PM (+bSoE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment