Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Liberal/Progressive BlackListing In Hollywood

A basic rule of free speech, diversity and democracy in a liberal/progressive world is dissenting opinions will not be tolerated. The latest victim of their "reality" is Jon Voight.

I've never thought of Jon Voight as intellectually challenged, but it's hard not to at least consider the possibility after reading his 7.28 Washington Times op-ed piece slamming Barack Obama. "The Democratic party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way," Voight wrote. "It seems to me that if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America."

I finally get what Angelina Jolie has been on about all these years. (I think.) Most people reading the Voight piece will say, "Okay, the Times gave him the rope and he hung himself." But you'd think an arch conservative working in an overwhelmingly liberal town would think about restraining himself for expediency's sake, if nothing else.

My honest deep-down reaction is that I now have a reason to feel negatively about the guy. I'm not saying Voight is on the HE shit list (although the idea certainly feels good -- just as it felt good to imagine the same thing last spring about Tina Fey when she became a rabid Hillary person on SNL), and I certainly don't think a symbolic condemnation along these lines would matter much to anyone. Nonetheless, it's going to be hard henceforth not to think of Voight as some kind of diseased wingnut.

In the conservative households and workplaces I have known, a healthy debate has always been welcomed. Vice versa, at best, my conservative views have been snidely tolerated even amongst old friends and their families. What is most interesting is that as friends aged, got married and had children, the most aggressive in their condemnation of conservatism was the spouses, especially the women.

I assume I am on somebody's list.

The Media: How Much More Will They Cheat The Public, Their Shareholders And Their Advertisers?

The media is a liar. That much is obvious, even to a blind horse.

Editors repeatedly say they only report the news, but the media actually editorializes in each story with obvious statements, omission of facts and laden adjectives belying their intent. Further, their bias is seen in their embarrassing proselytizing on behalf of "their" candidates when appearing with or in front of them as they perform an agnostic genuflection of adoration and fealty to their latest master.

As a homogeneous society of issue lobbyists, reporters and their administrators deliver their cant as news and when caught out, deny it, gloss over it or present themselves as professionals unable to devine what the problem is.

Bias is presented as fact and fact is presented as bias when said facts collide with their bias. So many issues, such as global warming and teens pregnant with illegitimate children, are viewed through their world view which flies in the face of fact. None the less, stories are filed, edited and printed with one world view only, theirs.

To the media, Bush's compassionate conservatism was merely a cover for his ineptitude and inexperience, but discussions of Obama's ineptitude and experience is merely a dodge by opponents to obscure his message of "change","hope" and "audacity." One candidate's lacking is another' strength in a never ending shell game of bait and switch in our 3rd world media.

American history's "sad" aspects require action, the senator tells cheering journalists
"I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged," the Democratic presidential hopeful said.

"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

Throughout history there has been tragedy. For all those accountable for slavery the ramifications would reverberate to the very core of Africa not only in a historical sense, but also in the here and now as slavery continues its ugly march through the souls of men.

As Saxons, Normans, Celts, Gauls, Romans, Picts all conquered and reconquered and assimilated into each other's societies, so did the Maasai, Luhya and Taita near Kenya in the 1800s as are the Janjaweed, Zaghawa, Fur, and Masalit in Darfur today. Europeans came to the North American continent, traded with, were attacked by and attacked tribes like the Powhatans, Souix, Mohawks, Seminoles, Apach and the Delaware as they had done to each other for eons.

The Europeans won the war(s). Unlike other wars between cultures, the Indian tribes of North America were not assimilated into the new society, and here lies the true tragedy, they were given and placed on reservations as not really Indians anymore nor were they members of the North American society. If there is any real remedy, it would be to abolish the reservation system entirely and for the remaining Indians to enter into the prevalent North American society as citizens of the United States.

If guilt ridden liberals want to start reparations, what are we to have, a great Ponzi scheme where whites give land and money to the descendants of African slaves who must then give land and money to North American Indian descendants who might have to give land and money to any newly found original inhabitants of the continent only to have all sell the land back to whites as each reparation is realized in a Congress that no longer reflects the citizens of the United States? Enter the Mexicans who slaughtered Indians of North and Central America to carve their country into a nation.

So, addressing "tragic" chapters in the history of America is Obama's new schtick. He must not be nuanced enough to realize the full ramifications on countries, societies and tribes world wide. That didn't faze reporters as they, "leapt to their feet and applauded enthusiastically after being told not to do so."

The really sad part is that reporters had to be told not to act like supplicants, but that story of their lying and cheating to those they say they serve seems to be a story not yet fit to print.